There is a public dispute between the cryptocurrency exchange OKX and the layer one blockchain project MANTRA regarding a migration process for the tokens. OKX accuses coordinated groups of manipulating the price of the OM token, while the CEO of MANTRA demands transparency regarding the tokens held by the platform.
This conflict revolves around preparations to migrate OM tokens to MANTRA's new blockchain network, but it reopened wounds that occurred last April when the price of the OM token collapsed by over 90% within hours, wiping out more than $5 billion in market value.
Why did the CEO of MANTRA accuse OKX?
John Patrick “JP” Mullin, the founder and CEO of MANTRA, published an open letter on platform X (formerly Twitter), addressing OKX's concerns regarding the migration timeline.
* Confirmation of migration and split: The message confirmed that the OM token on the ERC-20 system will be halted on January 15, 2026, followed by an upgrade to the protocol and a token split at a ratio of 1:4, a process that will be managed at the protocol level and will not require any interaction from users.
* Request for transparency: Mullin specifically asked OKX to disclose how many OM tokens users hold versus the number of tokens on OKX's balance sheet.
* Accusation of misinformation: On December 8, Mullin described OKX's post about the migration of OM as "misleading information" containing "factual errors," adding that "OKX's unilateral creation of specific dates without consulting MANTRA may have caused unnecessary confusion in the market."
* Delayed communication: Mullin mentioned that OKX only responded to them recently for the first time since the collapse that occurred in April.
The platform responds to manipulation allegations
OKX responded with a statement clarifying "the facts, as the MANTRA team continues to push a misleading narrative." The platform claimed:
* Coordinated manipulation: "We identified evidence that multiple interconnected and collusive accounts used large amounts of OM as collateral to borrow large sums of USDT, artificially driving up the price of OM."
* Risk containment measures: OKX stated that its risk team warned of unusual activity and requested corrective action, but account holders refused to cooperate. To contain the risks, these related accounts were controlled.
* Collapse and losses: The price of OM collapsed shortly thereafter. OKX confirmed that it only liquidated a very small portion of OM, yet the sharp price drop led to significant losses that were fully absorbed by OKX's security fund.
* Reporting the evidence: OKX stated that it provided complete evidence and documentation to regulatory authorities and law enforcement agencies, and that there are multiple lawsuits ongoing.
* Questions about the source: OKX questioned the source of the unusually large amounts of OM and why certain groups controlled a large portion of the token supply.
Observers' speculations and Mullin's clarifications
Taran Sabharwal, the CEO of trading company STIX, presented his analysis of the mechanics of the April collapse, speculating that accounts borrowed USDT against OM collateral via spot margin trading, using the funds to buy more OM, which drove the price up. When the price dropped below liquidation levels, automatic selling by OKX caused a cascading effect across trading platforms.
Sabharwal also speculated that Mullin might sue OKX to unfreeze the accounts and return the remaining tokens to him.
But Mullin responded to these speculations clarifying his company's current position:
> "I want to be very clear that neither MANTRA nor I have any ongoing lawsuits or legal proceedings with OKX. This matter is between the platform and other larger traders/investors of the OM token."
>
He noted that the situation was not public until OKX misunderstood the migration timeline to MANTRA's mainnet and published incorrect information that he had to correct.
