A brewing dispute between cryptocurrency exchange OKX and the Mantra project has intensified due to allegations of price manipulation concerning the OM token. Central to the dispute are claims that certain coordinated accounts influenced the value of OM by leveraging it as collateral for substantial USDT loans. While OKX asserts that its actions were aimed at preserving market integrity, Mantra’s leadership is demanding full transparency regarding the token’s holdings and trading practices.
In an open letter posted on Twitter, Mantra CEO John Patrick Mullin addressed the allegations made by OKX. He has called for comprehensive disclosures from the exchange, specifically requesting details about the distribution of OM tokens among users versus those held on OKX’s balance sheet. Mullin’s letter also sought to clarify ongoing confusion about the upcoming OM token migration.
In a strategic move, Mullin announced that the current ERC-20 version of OM will be deprecated on January 15, 2026. This will coincide with a protocol-level upgrade and a 1:4 token split. To alleviate concerns among token holders, he assured that no action would be required from users during this transition.
In response, OKX dismissed Mullin’s claims and defended its actions, asserting that it had intervened to safeguard the integrity of the market. The exchange accused several accounts of coordinating efforts to use OM tokens for USDT borrowing, which led to an artificial inflation of OM’s price. OKX’s risk team noted irregular trading behavior and requested that the involved account holders adjust their positions, but reported a lack of cooperation. Consequently, OKX intervened, taking control of the accounts involved and resulting in a significant drop in the OM token’s price shortly thereafter. The exchange stated that although it liquidated a portion of OM, it absorbed related losses through its Security Fund, explaining that external perpetual trading activities contributed to the price crash.
Amid these events, legal and regulatory scrutiny is underway. OKX has reported that it submitted its findings and documentation to relevant regulatory authorities and law enforcement, maintaining that it adhered to internal protocols in response to what it deemed suspicious activity. Additionally, the exchange has raised questions regarding the origins of extensive OM holdings by some entities tied to the situation.
Despite OKX’s firm stance, Mullin continues to advocate for greater transparency, arguing that the underlying issues stem from unclear communication about the OM token migration process. He maintains that the public warrants more insight into how OKX manages OM tokens. The situation remains under investigation, with both parties entrenched in their respective positions as legal processes unfold.
