This week, Binance founder Zhao Changpeng (CZ) made rare reminders on the X platform, urging investors not to blindly buy Meme coins created by others based on his tweets. He suddenly pulled a lively emotional celebration back into the context of risk education. He emphasized that most of his tweets are merely casual expressions of opinions or life snippets, without any deliberate consideration of their impact on prices, and he does not wish for them to be interpreted as any form of buy signal. The tension between the casual remarks of opinion leaders and the market's over-interpretation was magnified in this incident, bringing back debates around "What exactly is being gambled in Meme investments?" and "Can a KOL's statement be treated as a directive?" In the emotionally driven and highly fragmented information landscape of the Meme market, the urgency to rebuild the most basic boundaries of rational investment is becoming increasingly pressing.

A Tweet Igniting Market Inertia

Over the past two years, the crypto market has become accustomed to a script where a comment, a meme, or even just a retweet from a leading KOL on social media is often enough to ignite a short-term market for a Meme coin. Subsequently, funds are pulled back and forth between FOMO and panic, completing a cycle of rapid surges and drops. Although this incident did not involve specific coins or price fluctuations, this inertia of price driven by discourse has long become part of the emotional trading infrastructure. Behind this is not "the magic of language," but rather the structural fragility of Meme projects, which are small in size and have weak liquidity: high concentration of chips and limited order book depth make any sudden attention and buying pressure easily magnified in price. Meanwhile, retail investors heavily rely on social media timelines for information; many people naturally treat the first piece of content they see when they open the app as a temporary "research conclusion." In this context, the probability of conversational KOL statements being misread as "trading instructions" is continuously rising. In this environment of highly asymmetric information and discourse power, the dislocation between KOL's casual expressions and market trading behaviors is amplified into real financial risks—on one end is "just casually posting," while on the other end could be significant fluctuations in the positions and profit-loss fates of a group of people.

CZ Clarifying Suspicions of Leading Trades

In his latest statement, CZ directly pointed out that the vast majority of his tweets are casual actions and do not consider the potential price fluctuations they may trigger. He does not want these contents to be seen as any buy signal for Meme coins. He also provided a very direct risk warning: "If investors chase after Meme coins created by others based on my casual tweets, they can almost certainly expect to lose money." This statement serves to cool down the exuberant market, reminding retail investors not to treat KOL's immediate feelings as a reliable investment methodology. On the other hand, it implicitly distinguishes the boundaries between "content consumption" and "investment decisions": seeing an interesting tweet and pressing the buy button in a wallet are fundamentally two completely different things. From CZ's perspective, this statement is both a form of self-protection, minimizing the space for outsiders to interpret his remarks as "calling trades" or even "manipulating the market," and a reverse education for retail investors' FOMO emotions—more reckless and emotional decisions are closer to what he describes as "almost certain to lose money." More complexly, research briefs mention that there have already been cases of fake CZ accounts promoting Meme coin contract addresses, with the celebrity effect being misappropriated, making it even harder for ordinary users to distinguish between real and fake accounts and information. When the indistinguishable "CZ statements" intertwine with the already existing high-volatility narratives, the risks of being deceived and chasing highs are naturally magnified.

The Trap of Fan Culture and Blind Following

As the founder of a leading exchange and one of the most symbolic figures in the industry, CZ is almost inherently viewed as an "invisible signal source." Even though he repeatedly emphasizes that he is merely speaking casually and does not constitute any investment advice, the market still finds it difficult to completely separate his identity and position when interpreting these contents. For many fans, their admiration for CZ, combined with their desire for the "get-rich-quick stories" of the crypto market, creates a strong psychological expectation: if he is willing to mention a direction or a concept, even if just jokingly, does it not imply "having connections," "having resources," or "having information"? Driven by this mindset, a casually made comment can easily be amplified into a "signal" or "hint," merging fan culture with speculative impulses, creating a collective illusion of treating jokes as investment directives. For opinion leaders, this constitutes a gray area between freedom of speech and market responsibility: they do not wish to be seen as licensed advisors, nor do they want every statement to undergo compliance review, but the reality is that each of their public statements does indeed influence prices and expectations to varying degrees. This tension leaves gaps for fake accounts and dramatized marketing, which utilize phrases like "I am just relaying the KOL's meaning" or "This is a hint from a certain big shot," amplifying the mix of trust and uncertainty, making followers face increasingly complex choices regarding "who to believe" and "to what extent."

A Long-Term Coordinate in Another Voice

In contrast to Meme speculation, there is another discussion thread about long-term asset allocation. Bitwise CIO Matt Hougan publicly stated that excluding Bitcoin from 401(k) retirement plans is "absurd," attempting to bring Bitcoin back into the context of long-term financial planning. This voice sharply contrasts with the short-term emotional games represented by Meme, highlighting the stark differences in time dimensions and risk profiles: the former emphasizes a multi-year or even multi-decade allocation perspective, while the latter often seeks pleasure in hourly or even minute-level fluctuations. The research brief also mentions that traditional institutions like VanEck hold an optimistic view of the overall crypto market but are cautious about Bitcoin's short-term trends, indicating that within the same large market, the narratives of speculation and allocation coexist in parallel: on one side are funds chasing hot spots for short-term gains, while on the other are institutions and individuals attempting to incorporate crypto assets into longer-term portfolios. If we pull back the perspective from "What did KOL tweet today?" the question is no longer just "Should I chase a certain Meme?" but rather "What is the position of this type of asset in my long-term financial landscape?" Instead of searching for the next lottery ticket between tweets and memes, it is better to clarify whether one wants to participate in a short-term emotional game or build an asset portfolio that can withstand cyclical fluctuations. This is also a more realistic main thread behind CZ's reminders.

The Discourse Boundaries Under Regulatory Shadows

In the crypto world where regulatory standards are not yet fully clear, the game between discourse power and regulatory authority is also taking shape. The research brief mentions a case in which a federal judge in Tennessee supported the prediction market platform Kalshi against regulation, which, to some extent, showcases the tug-of-war between regulation and innovation in new market forms: what can be seen as "legitimate market expectation expression," and what might be classified as financial activities that require strict constraints. Returning to social media, the debate over whether KOL statements constitute market manipulation has repeatedly emerged between public opinion and regulatory bodies. Regulatory agencies clearly maintain a potential jurisdictional interest in the impact of opinion leaders' remarks on prices, while the market itself hopes to retain as much leeway for discussion as possible. In this context, from the perspective of Binance and CZ, issuing risk warnings in advance and positioning themselves as "educating the market rather than inciting speculation" helps to retain some explanatory space and buffer when potential regulatory pressures arise. The real question hanging over the industry is how social media platforms, KOLs, and exchanges will delineate that invisible red line during the regulatory ambiguity phase: which types of expressions still belong to opinion sharing, which types of content will be seen as substantive "guiding trades," and who should bear responsibility for the consequences when prices fluctuate accordingly.

Three Bottom Lines to Step Back from the Meme Coin Casino

Returning to the incident itself, it resembles a collective reflection triggered by CZ rather than just a risk warning. It reminds the market to re-distinguish between "scrolling content on the timeline" and "making decisions in the market," where the former can be entertainment and socializing, while the latter concerns real money. On this distinction, there are at least three bottom lines that retail investors should remember: first, for any content involving financial decisions, verify the account source and the authenticity of the information first to avoid being led by fake KOLs or forged screenshots; second, treat social media opinions as a starting point for research rather than an endpoint, independently do some basic homework to understand what you are buying and what risks you are taking; third, avoid letting a single tweet or fragment of information dominate position choices, especially in highly emotional and illiquid assets like Meme coins. The more frenzied the narrative and the more turbulent the emotions, the real moat lies not in "who to follow to buy," but in the degree of understanding of risks and the trading discipline that can still be maintained in a high-volatility environment. Looking ahead, the norms of opinion leaders' statements, investor education at the platform and institutional levels, and the potential upcoming regulatory framework will collectively shape the boundaries of the next round of Meme narratives: whether to continue cycling in the casino logic of "who shouts louder" or gradually return to a more sober risk-reward assessment depends on whether the entire market can truly learn to maintain some distance from the frenzy after such reminders.

Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh

OKX Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。