Podcast Discussion: Deep Dive Into This Article.
In one of the most dramatic price collapses of 2025, Mantra’s OM token fell by over 90% in less than 24 hours, sending shockwaves through the crypto industry and igniting intense debates around accountability, transparency, and the role of centralized exchanges in digital asset market stability.
The crash, which wiped out over $5 billion in market capitalization, triggered a flurry of on-chain activity, exchange scrutiny, and community backlash. While the Mantra team has pointed to centralized exchange (CEX) liquidations as the main culprit, others have accused the project and its partners of potential insider manipulation. The truth, however, appears tangled in a complex web of liquidity issues, tokenomics changes, and rapid selloffs during a vulnerable market window.
The Breakdown: Timeline of the OM Price Crash
The incident unfolded over the weekend of April 13, 2025, during a period of notably thin trading volume. The OM token, which had recently reached new highs of over $6.30, suddenly plunged to below $0.50—a staggering drop that took many traders by surprise.
Market observers pointed out that the selloff appeared to be accelerated by liquidations, with centralized exchanges allegedly closing out leveraged OM positions as the price began to fall. Once key support levels were broken, cascading stop-losses and margin calls amplified the decline.
Adding to the pressure, several large wallets moved tens of millions worth of OM tokens to exchanges—moves that blockchain analysts interpreted as signs of insider exits or institutional dumping.
Who’s Being Accused?
The collapse quickly sparked speculation over who might have triggered the chain reaction. According to Lookonchain, a blockchain analytics platform, 17 wallets transferred approximately 43.6 million OM tokens (valued at ~$227 million at the time) to exchanges in the days leading up to the price crash.
Some community members and Twitter sleuths accused Laser Digital, a digital asset subsidiary of Nomura Bank, of being connected to at least one of the wallets involved in large transfers. However, Laser Digital denied any involvement, stating that the wallet flagged by on-chain investigators did not belong to them.
They further clarified that they had not moved or sold any OM tokens during that period, calling the allegations “entirely false.”
What Did Mantra Say?
In response to the crisis, John Patrick Mullin, CEO of Mantra, issued a detailed statement denying that either the Mantra team or its early investors were behind the selloff. Instead, he blamed “reckless forced closures initiated by centralized exchanges”—specifically referring to liquidations that occurred during low-liquidity hours and without sufficient market depth to absorb the selling pressure.
Mullin emphasized that Mantra’s internal wallet holdings remained intact and publicly verifiable on-chain. To build confidence, he published wallet addresses tied to the team’s allocation and invited independent audits to validate their inactivity during the crash.
He also pointed to major changes in OM’s tokenomics since October 2024, which may have played a role in investor confusion. Notably:
- The total supply doubled, raising concerns about inflationary pressure.
- OM shifted to a more inflationary model, designed to fund growth and staking rewards.
- Several large unlock events were scheduled for early 2025, increasing short-term selling pressure.
Centralized Exchanges Under Scrutiny
One of the main narratives to emerge from the crisis was the role of centralized exchanges, especially OKX, in exacerbating the volatility. Mantra’s team claimed that sudden and poorly timed liquidations—potentially due to outdated risk settings or algorithmic mismanagement—had deepened the crash far beyond what organic selling would have caused.
OKX responded, noting that OM had undergone major changes in its supply dynamics and protocol fundamentals over the previous six months. While they didn’t explicitly confirm forced liquidations, they acknowledged that “tokenomic shifts and leveraged trading practices” may have exposed OM to increased volatility and risk.
Community Reaction: Shock, Frustration, and Distrust
The Mantra community was swift to react—and the sentiment was overwhelmingly negative.
Users on platforms like X (formerly Twitter), Telegram, and Discord accused the team of mismanagement, misleading communications about token supply, and failing to safeguard the market from potential manipulation. The situation drew comparisons to past collapses, such as:
- Terra (LUNA) – where algorithmic failure led to a death spiral.
- FTX – where internal mismanagement and liquidity crises shocked the industry.
- SifuDAO and Wonderland – where key figures were revealed to have problematic pasts.
Phrases like “rug pull” and “DeFi drama” dominated social commentary, even though no direct fraud has been proven. Many traders demanded token burns, buybacks, or other immediate recovery mechanisms.
Mantra’s Recovery Plan
In a follow-up announcement, the Mantra team said that restoring OM’s credibility was their “top priority.” Measures being considered include:
- Launching a token buyback program to reduce circulating supply.
- Reworking inflation mechanisms to limit emissions.
- Improving transparency with weekly wallet audits and public disclosures.
- Offering rewards or grants to affected community members who remained engaged.
They also reiterated the strength of the Mantra ecosystem, citing a $109 million ecosystem development fund earmarked for growth initiatives, partnerships, and developer support.
Where Does OM Go from Here?
Despite a partial recovery in OM’s price—bouncing from ~$0.50 to ~$0.70—the road ahead remains challenging. The team must now restore credibility, navigate potential legal and regulatory scrutiny, and rebuild its community after a major breach of trust.
Long-term, Mantra’s ability to deliver on product development, DeFi integration, and cross-chain adoption will determine whether OM can recover from this reputational hit.
Conclusion
The OM price crash serves as yet another example of how DeFi volatility, centralized exchange mechanics, and unclear tokenomics can collide to catastrophic effect. While the true cause of the collapse may never be fully known, the incident has already reshaped perceptions around Mantra and its flagship token.
It’s a harsh reminder that in crypto, even blue-chip narratives can unravel overnight—and that transparency, liquidity planning, and user trust remain the most valuable assets a protocol can hold.
This article reflects the opinions of the publisher based on available information at the time of writing. It is not intended to provide financial advice, and it does not necessarily represent the views of the news site or its affiliates. Readers are encouraged to conduct further research or consult with a financial advisor before making any investment decisions.
