- Mantra’s CEO requests that OKX disclose the number of OM tokens held by users versus its own balance sheet.
- OKX accuses coordinated accounts of manipulating OM’s price by using it as collateral to borrow USDT.
- OKX has submitted evidence to regulators and law enforcement, claiming compliance with proper procedures and transparency.
OKX and Mantra are engaged in a public dispute over the price manipulation of the OM token. The conflict began when OKX accused coordinated groups of using OM tokens as collateral to manipulate prices. Meanwhile, Mantra’s CEO, John Patrick Mullin, is demanding that OKX disclose how many OM tokens it holds on behalf of its users versus its own balance sheet.
Mantra’s CEO Requests Transparency from OKX
As it was reported by CryptoNewsLand, Mantra’s CEO, John Patrick Mullin, publicly responded to OKX’s accusations with an open letter on X. He demanded that the exchange disclose the number of OM tokens held by its users compared to its own balance sheet. Mullin explained, “We request for OKX to confirm (i) the number of OKX users’ $OM tokens to be migrated and (ii) the number of $OM tokens held by OKX on OKX’s balance sheet.”
The open letter also addressed the concerns about the migration of the OM token. Mullin clarified that the ERC-20 OM token would be deprecated on January 15, 2026. After this date, the token would undergo a protocol-level upgrade and a 1:4 token split, requiring no action from users.
OKX Accuses Mantra of Misleading the Public
In response to Mantra’s CEO’s open letter, OKX denied the accusations and stated that it had acted responsibly. OKX claimed that it had identified evidence that multiple connected accounts used OM as collateral to borrow large amounts of USDT. These actions, according to OKX, artificially inflated OM’s price. OKX’s risk team flagged this abnormal activity and requested corrective action, but the account holders did not cooperate.
OKX took control of the related accounts to limit the risk. Shortly after, the OM price crashed, but OKX had liquidated only a small portion of OM. The exchange absorbed the losses through its Security Fund. OKX added, “Multiple third-party analyses indicate that the price crash was driven by perpetual trading activity outside of our exchange.”
OKX has also submitted evidence to regulators and law enforcement agencies, claiming it has followed proper procedures. The exchange raised questions about the origins of the unusually large quantities of OM held by certain groups. OKX is currently involved in multiple legal proceedings related to the incident. Despite OKX’s response, Mullin continues to demand transparency and clarity from the exchange. He emphasized that the situation began with misinformation surrounding the OM token migration.
