Under normal circumstances, the so-called on-chain tokenized stock short squeeze logic goes something like this (not discussing actual feasibility): 1. Robinhood or other compliant issuers release tokenized stocks on-chain, with prices pegged to real stocks; 2. A certain meme coin is paired with the tokenized stock; 3. Retail investors who originally don’t hold the tokenized stock buy the meme coin, driving up the price of the tokenized stock in the liquidity pool; 4. Due to arbitrage opportunities, market makers buy the real stock and convert it to mint tokenized stocks on-chain, bringing the price back to parity; 5. During this process, the market makers’ purchase of the real stock might drive up its price, potentially causing a short squeeze. Now, tonight’s situation with JINQIAN/FAMI is: 1. An unknown project team issued the FAMI token on-chain, with minting permissions, but there’s no way to confirm compliance, and the liquidity pool isn’t even locked. If it’s not a compliant RWA issuer, it’s essentially just a random, unregulated on-chain token with the same name. 2. They issued the JINQIAN meme coin and paired it with FAMI, creating a relatively large liquidity pool. 3. Since FAMI’s company itself has an extremely low market cap, it triggered on-chain hype, with retail investors frantically buying JINQIAN, driving up FAMI as the underlying asset in the pool. 4. Some retail investors took it a step further and directly bought FAMI’s real stock, causing its price to rise. Classic case of the process being completely wrong, but the outcome being completely right. This is somewhat similar to the early days of Base’s meme coin Bald. It also didn’t lock the liquidity pool but pumped like crazy, only to end with the pool being pulled. In reality, there was no solid logic throughout the entire process. In such cases, you can only judge for yourself whether the potential upside * the probability of no malicious intent outweighs the potential downside * the probability of malicious intent. Honestly, almost all trading scenarios are like this. As long as there’s excess return, there’s no such thing as 100% certainty. For most people, projects like this have extremely low certainty, but they also come with the potential for dozens of times the return.