Dom Blames Web3 Market Manipulation After Broad Crypto Sell Off

A broad sell off across major cryptocurrencies has drawn a blunt assessment from Dominic Williams, founder of Internet Computer, who argues that years of distortion in Web3 markets have damaged investor judgement and warped incentives across the sector.

The downturn prompted a comment on X from Kevin Malone, President and CEO of Malone Wealth Ventures, who wrote that it was “so incredible how every crypto holder of different assets, ALLLLLLL decided to sell their coins at the same time”, adding, “So glad Wall St. adopted the crypto narrative.”

Williams responded with a pointed critique of how crypto markets function. He wrote: “Years of systemic manipulation of web3 markets made them dumb and dumber. Now vaporware usually does better than real tech, and Web3 investors are so punch drunk they can’t tell the difference between real tech and a narrative, and influencer noise and actual adoption. Ahem.”

His remarks shift attention away from coordinated selling and towards what he sees as entrenched structural problems. The claim is not that investors consciously act in lockstep, but that incentives within the system reward visibility and short term excitement over sustained engineering work.

Crypto markets have long displayed a high degree of correlation. During periods of stress, tokens with very different use cases often fall together. Analysts usually point to shared liquidity pools, derivatives exposure, algorithmic trading strategies and macroeconomic pressures as explanations. When risk appetite fades, capital tends to exit speculative assets broadly, rather than discriminating between individual projects.

Even so, criticism about narrative driven valuation has grown louder in recent years. Tokens tied to emerging trends or amplified by large online followings can attract rapid inflows. Meanwhile, infrastructure projects focused on backend improvements, developer tooling or protocol level upgrades may struggle to capture the same attention, despite building products designed for long term use.

Internet Computer, launched by the DFINITY Foundation, was introduced as a network capable of running applications and services entirely on chain, reducing reliance on traditional cloud hosting. Its ambition places it in the category of foundational infrastructure rather than consumer facing hype cycles. Like most major tokens, however, ICP has experienced sharp swings in price since its debut.

Williams’ frustration appears to stem from a belief that markets are failing to differentiate between projects based on measurable adoption or technical depth. Supporters of his view argue that trading volumes and social media reach often outweigh metrics such as developer activity, throughput or real world usage. Critics counter that markets ultimately price in expectations about future demand, and that attention is itself a driver of adoption.

The reference to “systemic manipulation” adds another layer. Crypto markets operate across global exchanges with varying levels of oversight. Concerns about wash trading, thin order books and concentrated token holdings have circulated for years. While regulators in several jurisdictions have moved to tighten standards, enforcement remains uneven and much of the trading activity still takes place on platforms outside traditional financial frameworks.

At the same time, institutional participation has grown. Exchange traded products, custodial services and trading desks linked to established financial firms now form part of the ecosystem. Some observers argue that this has improved liquidity and legitimacy. Others believe it has introduced dynamics similar to those seen in traditional markets, including leverage driven volatility.

There is little concrete evidence that a single coordinated force directs market wide sell offs. However, structural features such as perpetual futures, automated liquidations and cross market arbitrage can cause rapid cascades once prices begin to fall. In that environment, sentiment can shift quickly and narratives can amplify moves already under way.

Williams’ comments highlight a broader tension within Web3. Builders focused on protocol design and scalability often call for a closer link between price and utility. Traders and speculators, by contrast, tend to prioritise momentum and opportunity. Both groups coexist within the same markets, and their priorities do not always align.

As prices fluctuate again, the episode serves as a reminder that crypto remains a young asset class. Its infrastructure continues to evolve, and so does the balance between speculation and application. For founders like Williams, the central question is whether markets will eventually reward sustained technical delivery over short term noise, or whether narrative will continue to set the pace.

A broad sell off across major cryptocurrencies has drawn a blunt assessment from Dominic Williams, founder of Internet Computer, who argues that years of distortion in Web3 markets have damaged investor judgement and warped incentives across the sector.

The downturn prompted a comment on X from Kevin Malone, President and CEO of Malone Wealth Ventures, who wrote that it was “so incredible how every crypto holder of different assets, ALLLLLLL decided to sell their coins at the same time”, adding, “So glad Wall St. adopted the crypto narrative.”

Williams responded with a pointed critique of how crypto markets function. He wrote: “Years of systemic manipulation of web3 markets made them dumb and dumber. Now vaporware usually does better than real tech, and Web3 investors are so punch drunk they can’t tell the difference between real tech and a narrative, and influencer noise and actual adoption. Ahem.”

His remarks shift attention away from coordinated selling and towards what he sees as entrenched structural problems. The claim is not that investors consciously act in lockstep, but that incentives within the system reward visibility and short term excitement over sustained engineering work.

Crypto markets have long displayed a high degree of correlation. During periods of stress, tokens with very different use cases often fall together. Analysts usually point to shared liquidity pools, derivatives exposure, algorithmic trading strategies and macroeconomic pressures as explanations. When risk appetite fades, capital tends to exit speculative assets broadly, rather than discriminating between individual projects.

Even so, criticism about narrative driven valuation has grown louder in recent years. Tokens tied to emerging trends or amplified by large online followings can attract rapid inflows. Meanwhile, infrastructure projects focused on backend improvements, developer tooling or protocol level upgrades may struggle to capture the same attention, despite building products designed for long term use.

Internet Computer, launched by the DFINITY Foundation, was introduced as a network capable of running applications and services entirely on chain, reducing reliance on traditional cloud hosting. Its ambition places it in the category of foundational infrastructure rather than consumer facing hype cycles. Like most major tokens, however, ICP has experienced sharp swings in price since its debut.

Williams’ frustration appears to stem from a belief that markets are failing to differentiate between projects based on measurable adoption or technical depth. Supporters of his view argue that trading volumes and social media reach often outweigh metrics such as developer activity, throughput or real world usage. Critics counter that markets ultimately price in expectations about future demand, and that attention is itself a driver of adoption.

The reference to “systemic manipulation” adds another layer. Crypto markets operate across global exchanges with varying levels of oversight. Concerns about wash trading, thin order books and concentrated token holdings have circulated for years. While regulators in several jurisdictions have moved to tighten standards, enforcement remains uneven and much of the trading activity still takes place on platforms outside traditional financial frameworks.

At the same time, institutional participation has grown. Exchange traded products, custodial services and trading desks linked to established financial firms now form part of the ecosystem. Some observers argue that this has improved liquidity and legitimacy. Others believe it has introduced dynamics similar to those seen in traditional markets, including leverage driven volatility.

There is little concrete evidence that a single coordinated force directs market wide sell offs. However, structural features such as perpetual futures, automated liquidations and cross market arbitrage can cause rapid cascades once prices begin to fall. In that environment, sentiment can shift quickly and narratives can amplify moves already under way.

Williams’ comments highlight a broader tension within Web3. Builders focused on protocol design and scalability often call for a closer link between price and utility. Traders and speculators, by contrast, tend to prioritise momentum and opportunity. Both groups coexist within the same markets, and their priorities do not always align.

As prices fluctuate again, the episode serves as a reminder that crypto remains a young asset class. Its infrastructure continues to evolve, and so does the balance between speculation and application. For founders like Williams, the central question is whether markets will eventually reward sustained technical delivery over short term noise, or whether narrative will continue to set the pace.

A broad sell off across major cryptocurrencies has drawn a blunt assessment from Dominic Williams, founder of Internet Computer, who argues that years of distortion in Web3 markets have damaged investor judgement and warped incentives across the sector.

The downturn prompted a comment on X from Kevin Malone, President and CEO of Malone Wealth Ventures, who wrote that it was “so incredible how every crypto holder of different assets, ALLLLLLL decided to sell their coins at the same time”, adding, “So glad Wall St. adopted the crypto narrative.”

Williams responded with a pointed critique of how crypto markets function. He wrote: “Years of systemic manipulation of web3 markets made them dumb and dumber. Now vaporware usually does better than real tech, and Web3 investors are so punch drunk they can’t tell the difference between real tech and a narrative, and influencer noise and actual adoption. Ahem.”

His remarks shift attention away from coordinated selling and towards what he sees as entrenched structural problems. The claim is not that investors consciously act in lockstep, but that incentives within the system reward visibility and short term excitement over sustained engineering work.

Crypto markets have long displayed a high degree of correlation. During periods of stress, tokens with very different use cases often fall together. Analysts usually point to shared liquidity pools, derivatives exposure, algorithmic trading strategies and macroeconomic pressures as explanations. When risk appetite fades, capital tends to exit speculative assets broadly, rather than discriminating between individual projects.

Even so, criticism about narrative driven valuation has grown louder in recent years. Tokens tied to emerging trends or amplified by large online followings can attract rapid inflows. Meanwhile, infrastructure projects focused on backend improvements, developer tooling or protocol level upgrades may struggle to capture the same attention, despite building products designed for long term use.

Internet Computer, launched by the DFINITY Foundation, was introduced as a network capable of running applications and services entirely on chain, reducing reliance on traditional cloud hosting. Its ambition places it in the category of foundational infrastructure rather than consumer facing hype cycles. Like most major tokens, however, ICP has experienced sharp swings in price since its debut.

Williams’ frustration appears to stem from a belief that markets are failing to differentiate between projects based on measurable adoption or technical depth. Supporters of his view argue that trading volumes and social media reach often outweigh metrics such as developer activity, throughput or real world usage. Critics counter that markets ultimately price in expectations about future demand, and that attention is itself a driver of adoption.

The reference to “systemic manipulation” adds another layer. Crypto markets operate across global exchanges with varying levels of oversight. Concerns about wash trading, thin order books and concentrated token holdings have circulated for years. While regulators in several jurisdictions have moved to tighten standards, enforcement remains uneven and much of the trading activity still takes place on platforms outside traditional financial frameworks.

At the same time, institutional participation has grown. Exchange traded products, custodial services and trading desks linked to established financial firms now form part of the ecosystem. Some observers argue that this has improved liquidity and legitimacy. Others believe it has introduced dynamics similar to those seen in traditional markets, including leverage driven volatility.

There is little concrete evidence that a single coordinated force directs market wide sell offs. However, structural features such as perpetual futures, automated liquidations and cross market arbitrage can cause rapid cascades once prices begin to fall. In that environment, sentiment can shift quickly and narratives can amplify moves already under way.

Williams’ comments highlight a broader tension within Web3. Builders focused on protocol design and scalability often call for a closer link between price and utility. Traders and speculators, by contrast, tend to prioritise momentum and opportunity. Both groups coexist within the same markets, and their priorities do not always align.

As prices fluctuate again, the episode serves as a reminder that crypto remains a young asset class. Its infrastructure continues to evolve, and so does the balance between speculation and application. For founders like Williams, the central question is whether markets will eventually reward sustained technical delivery over short term noise, or whether narrative will continue to set the pace.

A broad sell off across major cryptocurrencies has drawn a blunt assessment from Dominic Williams, founder of Internet Computer, who argues that years of distortion in Web3 markets have damaged investor judgement and warped incentives across the sector.

The downturn prompted a comment on X from Kevin Malone, President and CEO of Malone Wealth Ventures, who wrote that it was “so incredible how every crypto holder of different assets, ALLLLLLL decided to sell their coins at the same time”, adding, “So glad Wall St. adopted the crypto narrative.”

Williams responded with a pointed critique of how crypto markets function. He wrote: “Years of systemic manipulation of web3 markets made them dumb and dumber. Now vaporware usually does better than real tech, and Web3 investors are so punch drunk they can’t tell the difference between real tech and a narrative, and influencer noise and actual adoption. Ahem.”

His remarks shift attention away from coordinated selling and towards what he sees as entrenched structural problems. The claim is not that investors consciously act in lockstep, but that incentives within the system reward visibility and short term excitement over sustained engineering work.

Crypto markets have long displayed a high degree of correlation. During periods of stress, tokens with very different use cases often fall together. Analysts usually point to shared liquidity pools, derivatives exposure, algorithmic trading strategies and macroeconomic pressures as explanations. When risk appetite fades, capital tends to exit speculative assets broadly, rather than discriminating between individual projects.

Even so, criticism about narrative driven valuation has grown louder in recent years. Tokens tied to emerging trends or amplified by large online followings can attract rapid inflows. Meanwhile, infrastructure projects focused on backend improvements, developer tooling or protocol level upgrades may struggle to capture the same attention, despite building products designed for long term use.

Internet Computer, launched by the DFINITY Foundation, was introduced as a network capable of running applications and services entirely on chain, reducing reliance on traditional cloud hosting. Its ambition places it in the category of foundational infrastructure rather than consumer facing hype cycles. Like most major tokens, however, ICP has experienced sharp swings in price since its debut.

Williams’ frustration appears to stem from a belief that markets are failing to differentiate between projects based on measurable adoption or technical depth. Supporters of his view argue that trading volumes and social media reach often outweigh metrics such as developer activity, throughput or real world usage. Critics counter that markets ultimately price in expectations about future demand, and that attention is itself a driver of adoption.

The reference to “systemic manipulation” adds another layer. Crypto markets operate across global exchanges with varying levels of oversight. Concerns about wash trading, thin order books and concentrated token holdings have circulated for years. While regulators in several jurisdictions have moved to tighten standards, enforcement remains uneven and much of the trading activity still takes place on platforms outside traditional financial frameworks.

At the same time, institutional participation has grown. Exchange traded products, custodial services and trading desks linked to established financial firms now form part of the ecosystem. Some observers argue that this has improved liquidity and legitimacy. Others believe it has introduced dynamics similar to those seen in traditional markets, including leverage driven volatility.

There is little concrete evidence that a single coordinated force directs market wide sell offs. However, structural features such as perpetual futures, automated liquidations and cross market arbitrage can cause rapid cascades once prices begin to fall. In that environment, sentiment can shift quickly and narratives can amplify moves already under way.

Williams’ comments highlight a broader tension within Web3. Builders focused on protocol design and scalability often call for a closer link between price and utility. Traders and speculators, by contrast, tend to prioritise momentum and opportunity. Both groups coexist within the same markets, and their priorities do not always align.

As prices fluctuate again, the episode serves as a reminder that crypto remains a young asset class. Its infrastructure continues to evolve, and so does the balance between speculation and application. For founders like Williams, the central question is whether markets will eventually reward sustained technical delivery over short term noise, or whether narrative will continue to set the pace.