One on-chain data point instantly wakes people up: a major whale lost 81% on ENA, with unrealized losses exceeding 15 million USD, and decided to completely liquidate. Instead of panic selling during the sharp decline, they calmly accepted defeat during a prolonged downward trend. What does this indicate? They gave up, no longer believing that the once-promising story could turn around.

This news is like a slap that wakes up those still holding onto "faith-based" holdings. It turns out even whales can be mistaken, misjudging an entire market narrative, and paying a heavy price.

Seeing this news, my first reaction was to check my own positions. Fortunately, I’ve never touched ENA. Even more fortunate is that my main assets are stored in USDD, generating stable daily returns, completely unaffected by any narrative-driven rises or falls.

The difference lies here. What caused the tragedy of that whale? Betting all chips on a "growth story," only for the story to collapse. I took the opposite approach: focusing most of my attention on "stability." What is the foundation of this approach? On-chain verifiable over-collateralization mechanisms, which won’t "collapse" but will keep operating indefinitely.

That’s why stablecoin strategies give people confidence — no need to bet on what the next hot coin will be, just ensure that when others fail, your funds remain intact.

The story of ENA actually reflects a common flaw in many new tokens from 2024 to 2025: inflated valuation (FDV), attractive narratives, but no real growth potential. From the moment of issuance, it’s already set in stone. The risks of such projects are far greater than they appear on the surface.