Odaily reported that trader 0xSun said in a post on X that the rally in JINQIAN and FAMI does not match the usual logic seen in a standard on-chain stock short-squeeze trade.
How 0xSun described the usual setup
He said a typical on-chain equity squeeze generally starts when Robinhood or another compliant issuer launches tokenized stock on-chain that is pegged to the price of a real listed share. A Meme coin is then paired with that tokenized stock, and retail traders who do not hold the tokenized shares buy the Meme coin, pushing up the price of the tokenized stock that sits underneath the liquidity pool.
Once an arbitrage gap appears, market makers buy the actual stock and convert or mint it into on-chain tokenized shares to bring the price back toward its peg. According to 0xSun, that buying in the underlying stock can itself push the listed shares higher and set off a short squeeze.
Why he said JINQIAN and FAMI are different
0xSun said the JINQIAN/FAMI case is different. In his account, an unknown project team issued a FAMI token on-chain and kept mint authority, while the project’s compliance status remains unclear and the liquidity pool may not be locked.
If the issuer is not a compliant real-world asset, or RWA, issuer, he said, then FAMI is essentially just an on-chain token with the same name. He added that the same project also issued the Meme coin JINQIAN and paired it with FAMI, with the pool itself relatively large.
Retail buying spread from the token pair to the stock
He said FAMI, the company, has a very low market capitalization, which stirred up sentiment on-chain. Retail traders then aggressively bought JINQIAN, lifting FAMI as the base asset in the pool. Some retail traders then went a step further and bought FAMI shares directly, which pushed the stock price higher.
0xSun said the closest comparison was Bald, an early Meme coin on Base. He described that episode as one where the pool was also not locked, the token was pushed sharply higher, and the move eventually ended with liquidity being pulled. In his view, there was no deterministic logic in the move from start to finish.
His takeaway on risk and upside
He said situations like this leave participants to make their own judgment on whether the probability of further upside and no malicious behavior is greater, or whether the probability of malicious behavior and a move to zero is greater.
0xSun added that nearly all trading situations work this way: once excess returns are on the table, there is no 100% certainty. For most people, he said, projects like this offer very low certainty, but they may also carry the potential for returns measured in the dozens of times.