One of the factors that exacerbates income inequality in today's world is the profit generated by insider access. While we think financial deepening will benefit society as a whole, this resulting information asymmetry only exacerbates matters. More dangerously, this situation has become a self-perpetuating cycle. Rising income inequality and financial hardship are driving people to take more risks. Thousands, believing it's possible to get rich overnight, are losing their savings in markets they hoped to enter, relying on dubious social media accounts and Telegram pages. Large and privileged capitalists are gaining, and the income gap is widening. In a system where insider trading is leaked, regulations are weak, sanctions are ineffective, and financial literacy is low, this cycle, far from being broken, is only strengthened with each crisis. Income inequality creates new risks, and these new risks create further inequality. This situation has become a moral problem as much as an economic one. Two events in recent weeks have demonstrated once again that this deadly cycle has become a common story worldwide.

On October 11th, the cryptocurrency market experienced a historic crash. Markets like Bitcoin and Ethereum experienced such volatility within minutes that the fortunes of leveraged market participants eroded. The news that Trump would reimpose tariffs on China was cited as the trigger for this decline. But before this information was made public, some had already positioned themselves in the crypto space, presented as the world's most liquid and "free" market, based on the news. Hundreds of thousands of small investors trading with leverage were liquidated within seconds, unable to take any action, while those who received the news multiplied their fortunes. The cryptoasset market, which emerged with the claim of overcoming the classic corruption and dependency of the financial system, experienced a wealth transfer. The only difference is that this wealth transfer was faster and more ruthless.

We now know very well that politicians, banks, large fund managers, and private intelligence-linked investment groups around the world have instant access to information that can shape markets. Those who lack that information ultimately lose out. On one side, there are players who have access to the announcements of decision-makers in advance; On the other hand, there are millions trying to "seize the opportunity" with the savings they earn from their salaries. Therefore, the answer to the question "Why do small investors lose?" is not only technical but also political. Because it's clear what a system that leaks insider information, anticipates decisions, and shapes regulations to its own advantage has to lose. And this loser is both the small investor and the legitimacy of the system. Unless a country's, or the world's, financial architecture is built on fair access to information, every crisis becomes not just a price correction but a test of fairness.

These two examples tell the same story: What was presented to small investors as a "free market" has actually become an exclusive club for those who have prior knowledge. And this club builds even more wealth on the losses of small investors. This system generates its own fuel, just like a cycle: As income inequality increases, people take more risks; as they take more risks, those with insider information gain more; as they gain, the system becomes more attractive, and new small investors enter the game. The losers change with each round, but the winners remain the same. We know from economic history that economic crises and moral collapse are processes that feed each other.