The crypto world is currently embroiled in a contentious "blame game" between the tokenization protocol Mantra and the prominent exchange OKX. This dispute centers around the dramatic 99% crash of Mantra's OM token earlier this year, leaving a trail of questions about alleged price manipulation and who is responsible, all against the backdrop of an impending token migration.
Allegations of Price Manipulation and Denials
OKX ignited the controversy by claiming that the Mantra team borrowed "significant amounts of USDT," using OM tokens as collateral to artificially inflate its price. According to the exchange, this manipulation led to their risk team freezing accounts and liquidating a portion of Mantra's OM holdings, which subsequently triggered a broader market sell-off. OKX also raised concerns about the unexplained origin and control of unusually large quantities of OM by specific individuals. However, Mantra's CEO, JP Mullin, has countered these allegations, explicitly denying any ongoing litigation between Mantra or himself and OKX, stating that any legal actions are solely between the exchange and other large OM traders or investors.
Token Migration and Scrutiny of Motives
The ongoing conflict is further complicated by Mantra's planned migration from its current ERC-20 OM token to a new Layer 1 blockchain token, MANTRA, scheduled for early 2026. OKX had reportedly reached out to Mantra to facilitate the conversion of its OM holdings, which has sparked questions about the exchange's internal exposure to the token. External observers, such as user Park Yong, have expressed skepticism regarding OKX's stated motives, querying whether the exchange's actions are genuinely for user protection or if they stem from undisclosed internal exposures related to OM that became problematic as the migration timeline approached. Since these events unfolded, the OM token has experienced overwhelmingly bearish sentiment and significant price reversals.
