Looking at the price at 0.072 USD and the valuation of Cardano being just a bit double then DogeCoin, almost the same as IOTA and like third of EOS I must think something is wrong with the market.
People who understand these projects must realize there is no correlation between the Prices and the Performance & Potential of the crypto projects. DogeCoin is a joke coin, IOTA has fundemental issues & lacks lot of conceptual proofs & logical reasoning, while EOS is a wannabe Cardano project which is not decentralized at all, but may be delusive due to the illusion created with such a heavy marketing budget.
Other interesting characteristic is that Cardano tends to drop much more then the rest of the Top10 coins.
I have the feeling, theory that there were some competitors of Cardano buying into the ICO or early post-ICO phase and became bad actor whales with a different interest & agenda that normally you would expect from a heavy Cardano investor trying to manage & optimize it´s investment over a certain period of time.
So we might have bad actor whales providing constant supply, day traders who are always very active and panic sellers influencing the price Cardano moves.
If competition can´t fight Cardano technology wise, they may try to do so monetary wise. But obviously it´s gonna be a lost cause and may only have short term success.
The bigger challenge apart from this short term flash crash of the coin, will be the Sustainability path of Cardano, how to ensure that governance will only have good actors who act in the best interest of the Ecosystem and their heavy investment, when they start to vote on certain change request items to be paid by the treasury. So there can not be an assumption made from game theory point of view in the sustainability model, that we don´t have bad actors with large stake who want to corrupt & disrupt the system. We need maybe the same 51% of good actors assumption for governance, which we have on infrastructure level. Though here we may have a lot of passive members of the Community, who will not participate in the governance for any reason. Maybe we need something like in case you did not delegate your stake for voting, then there is some sort of automatic & random delegation based on a reputation / rating / credibility model. It should not happen that 30% or even higher percentage of the stakes are passive from Governance point of view.
I would even expect to have whales beyond a certain bag size (everything beyond 10m+ ADA or so) to be enforced to identify themselves would they want to use their power to influence the future of the Ecosystem by participating in the decentralized governance model. Anonymity is a luxury & naivety in such cases. You would obviously have to solve the problem not having a whale spreading it´s holdings to multiple accounts.
The decentralized governance system must have a certain way to control the impact of bad actor whales, not by anyhow taking or locking away their ADA (obviously that´s out of question, capability and the fundementals of a decentralized cryptocurrency), but somehow by limiting their impact in the governance model. You would need some voting process to declare a whale a bad actor whale to supress it´s voting power, but this is also very dangerous and difficult.
I am not providing a solution here, just raising the problem Pure liquid democracy with the hope it will self-organize will not be enough, we need to adjust it to work in a governance ecosystem with bad actor whales, a passive mass population, etc.
As earlier mentioned in another forum post ( https://forum.cardano.org/t/decentralized-organization-for-cardano-guardians-priests-doctors-fighters-scientists-wizards-inspectors ) a DAO might be part of a solution.
Other related topic:
It would also be nice to receive a weekly graphical report from IOHK, regarding analytics & statistics from the Cardano Blockchain (weekly technical reports are nice, but this would be as essential). Such a report would be also the best way to monitor the health of the Ecosystem. The report should help to understand for instance under such market conditions who are the sellers & buyers (in terms of size of ADA bags they hold), how does the ADA distribution look like, etc. I believe such reports must be already prepared till a certain extent and format internally at IOHK, why not share them with the public?