Why is it that the more anxious the project team is to "refute rumors", the more likely the price may not be able to stop falling? When I first entered the cryptocurrency industry, whenever there was negative news about a project, what I was most looking forward to was an official response. As long as the team issues a statement stating that the address is not theirs, the transfer is only for market making and position adjustment, and the token has not been unlocked in advance, I feel that the misunderstanding has been resolved and the price should quickly rise back. Later on, it was only after stepping into the pit that I understood. The statement could only explain the stance, and it was only then that the chips on the chain decided to sell. I used to hold a project, but after a sharp decline, the official continued to release articles to appease it, and the community also said it was malicious rumors. After reading it, I not only didn't leave, but also replenished my position during the rebound. However, I later discovered that although the disputed address did not belong to the official wallet, there were fund transactions with early institutions and market makers; The tokens were not sold out in one go, but were gradually distributed to multiple addresses for sale. The official did not completely lie, but also did not disclose all the facts. In such situations, don't rush to stand in line, look for verifiable things: where the token comes from, whether it complies with unlocking rules, whether it ultimately flows into the exchange, whether the selling pressure of spot has weakened, and whether the team is willing to disclose the complete address and purpose. What the market really cares about is not who wins the debate in the group, but who continues to sell coins. Remember: Refuting rumors can repair emotions, but it cannot eliminate throwing pressure out of thin air; When the textual explanation conflicts with the flow of funds, trust the chips on the chain first.