Hello,
Thanks for your answers.
You're right, my approach was not really correct.
I assumed that the price would drop by 50% in this scenario because I have always considered the market cap, alone, as an indicator of the trustworthiness of a token.
And to me, I could not believe that it was possible to artificially make the market cap of a token increase.
Yet, it's the case.
I'll just take an example just to make it clear, that I understood the things right.
For instance, if 10 fraudulent people launch a new token. Token price is 1$, 10000 tokens are available to be purchased, which is 1% of the supply.
They buy 10000$ overall.
Then, they artificially increase their market cap by releasing the tokens that were locked. The price can only increase because they won't sell their tokens, and new people may buy the tokens, .
If they release, let's say 50¨% of the overall supply, that will be 500 000 tokens available, with a marketcap price of at least 500 000$, right?
And in this scenario, if one takes the sole marketcap as a trustworthiness indicator, that'd be actually a huge mistake.
So one could say that instead of taking the market cap as an indicator, one could also take the token price. But it makes sense as you said that when tokens are unlocked, the price decreases. So price isn't enough.
And the numbers of holders neither. Because I assume that fraudulent people could create a lot of different wallets to buy the tokens, which would make people think that there are a lot of holders, when there actually isn't.
So what I'm starting to deeply understand is that actually, one shouldn't trust these numbers alone, and it's much more complex than that.
One should'n take these numbers are reflecting perfectly the health of a token. Even if they give a good idea, most of the time, of what's going on.
And you helped me understood it , so I thank you very much