According to @AltcoinGordon, comparing $SWIF moving from $30M to $10M with a coin dropping from $170M to $100K conflates very different loss magnitudes and is not the same event for traders (source: @AltcoinGordon on X). Based on the figures in the post, $30M→$10M reflects a 66.7% decline, while $170M→$100K reflects a 99.94% collapse, indicating materially different drawdown profiles (source: @AltcoinGordon on X). Using the same figures, recovering from $10M back to $30M requires a 200% gain, whereas $100K back to $170M requires roughly a 169,900% move, underscoring non-equivalent recovery math for position sizing and risk management (source: @AltcoinGordon on X). For trading decisions on SWIF and similar altcoins, the actionable takeaway is to compare percentage drawdowns and required recovery multiples rather than relying on visual chart similarity alone (source: @AltcoinGordon on X).