On December 13th, cryptocurrency exchange OKX published a lengthy statement on its X platform, responding to the MANTRA team's continued dissemination of "misleading narratives" and clarifying the facts point by point. OKX detailed the following points in its announcement:
- The exchange discovered multiple interconnected and conspiratorial accounts that used a large amount of OM as collateral to borrow a large amount of USDT, artificially driving up the price of OM.
- After the risk control team flagged this abnormal behavior, they contacted the account holder to request rectification, but the other party refused to cooperate.
- To control risk, OKX took over these related accounts. Shortly afterward, the price of OM crashed. OKX only liquidated a very small portion of OM, but due to the rapid crash, significant losses were incurred, all of which were absorbed by the OKX Security Fund.
- Multiple third-party analyses indicate that the price collapse was primarily driven by trading activity on platforms other than OKX.
- OKX Security Fund operates exactly as designed.
The announcement also stated that the source of these unusually large amounts of OM remains unclear, and it is also unknown why a specific group controls such a massive token supply. OKX has submitted complete evidence to regulatory and law enforcement agencies, and multiple lawsuits and legal proceedings are currently underway.
OKX concluded by criticizing the MANTRA team for not only failing to address these suspicious activities but also ignoring the facts and publicly accusing the exchange, calling this behavior "extremely unprofessional." OKX reiterated its commitment to fully cooperating with regulators and continuing to protect user interests.
Background of the controversy
The core of this controversy lies in the long-standing disagreement between OKX and MANTRA (the OM project team). It stems primarily from two events: first, the OM token's 95% flash crash in April of this year, with both sides shifting blame; and second, the recent failure to coordinate the migration of the OM token from ERC-20 to the MANTRA native chain: MANTRA plans to officially abolish the old OM token after January 15, 2026, implementing a 1:4 split and adjusting the gas unit. OKX initially announced that it would conduct the migration snapshot and conversion from December 22nd to 25th, suspending related services, but MANTRA CEO John Patrick Mullin strongly opposed this, stating that this timeline did not conform to the official governance proposal, could cause user confusion, and urged holders to withdraw their tokens from OKX and migrate themselves.
Both sides exchanged open letters, with OKX warning that it would take legal action if MANTRA's decisions were harmful. The controversy also brought up the old issue of the April crash: OKX accused MANTRA of conspiracy to manipulate the market, while MANTRA demanded that OKX disclose the transparency of its OM holdings.
The key disagreement lies in "who will dump their shares first".
Regarding OKX's latest announcement, cryptocurrency KOL Jason Chen (@jason_chen998) posted an article on the X platform today (14th), analyzing OKX's latest announcement in conjunction with MANTRA's explanation of the April incident six months ago. He pointed out that the two accounts are about 90% consistent, including the admission of the existence of related accounts pledging OM to borrow USDT, the "left foot stepping on the right foot" pattern of artificially pumping the price, and the flash crash being caused by a series of liquidations (small forced selling of spot goods → automatic liquidation of contracts → large-scale liquidation of collateral).
The only key disagreement lies in "who dumped the shares first": OKX's version argues that after taking over the accounts, the market makers or project teams would be unable to continue driving up the price, or would actively dump their shares to escape; MANTRA's version suggests that the earliest spot sales came from its own holdings. Chen Jian (Jason) specifically mentioned that OKX used the term "take control" instead of "freeze," implying that the exchange may have greater operational power, which may be a gray area that both sides are avoiding discussing. He believes that the risk of this model is mainly borne by the exchange, with the core still being a chain of liquidations and a market collapse, but the earliest trigger point remains unclear. He advises investors to refer to the announcements and make their own judgments.
