This morning, NIL's Long Wick Candle reversed the plot.

The project party just issued a statement, shifting the blame to the market maker - saying that a certain market maker acted without notice and smashed the borrowed coins to pieces. Now they are preparing to settle accounts with this market maker, intending to recover the money made from the dumping and use it all to repurchase NIL.

Sounds pretty just, but no key information has been provided: which market maker is it exactly? In the borrowing agreement signed at the beginning, was there any provision that the other party has to pay up in such cases?

Such things usually go silent afterwards. After all, it's easy to talk about accountability, but when it comes to actually suing and dragging things out, the tokens would have long gone cold.