Shitcoin market making is actually quite complicated, and there are mainly three paths to observe.

First, let's talk about the most common "volume-driven" approach. These people don't rely on heavy spending; they rely on words—calling signals, stirring up topics, coordinating multiple accounts to boost the hype. They prefer to strike during the most illiquid times, pulling spot orders or smashing contracts to eat the opposing side’s orders. Their capital isn't large, mainly operating on secondary exchanges, engaging in ultra-short-term trades. The biggest headache is internal spies running away in advance.

Next is the "large-position control" type. These players don't care about market sentiment at all, relying purely on funding rates and spot premiums to naturally attract counterparties. The premise is to lock more than 95% of their chips, with at least ten million USD in initial capital. The routine is clear: first control the market, then manipulate the price to draw in orders or smash to drain liquidity, gradually selling spot to recover costs. They may wash out a wave initially to lower costs. Their insider trading doesn't pose much threat; at most, it slices off some profits.

There's also an advanced version—"rate rhythm control"—starting with 90% chip control. The key is to hit the funding rate fluctuations: smash when the rate is positive, pull when negative. But honestly, funding rate manipulation requires cooperation from the opposing side; no one will take the other side at a fee that’s just rent. The real profit still comes from guiding the market with spot and deep-taking contracts. These players even welcome insider trading to help boost the hype.

Finally, there's the "violent money dumping" type. This is common in new projects where the circulating supply surges after an airdrop. The approach is crude—directly smashing depth with money, not bothering with logic. Some projects have over a hundred million USD prepared just for market making, and insider trading typically can't last to the end.