Mantra’s OM token collapsed by more than 90% overnight, and the crypto world can’t agree on why. On April 13, OM’s price plummeted from over $6 to below $0.50, wiping out more than $5 billion in market cap and triggering widespread panic across the crypto industry.
The sudden crash drew comparisons to Terra’s LUNA implosion as traders scrambled for answers. Unverified rumors of insider dumping, forced liquidations, mislabeled wallets and exchange manipulation quickly spread — but Mantra insists it was caught in the middle.
Mantra had built a strong position in the real-world asset tokenization narrative heading into April 13, backed by a $1-billion deal to tokenize Dubai-based Damac Group’s real estate and data centers. It secured a Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority (VARA) license in Dubai and launched a $108-million ecosystem fund with support from heavyweights such as Laser Digital, Shorooq, Amber Group and Brevan Howard Digital. In February 2025, the OM token hit an all-time high of nearly $9.
But on April 13, that momentum was violently interrupted. The hours that followed painted a messy picture of token transfers, insider speculation and shifting blame. Here’s a detailed look at how the OM collapse played out.
24 hours of the Mantra OM fiasco
April 13 (16:00–18:00 UTC)
Mantra’s OM token was trading sideways throughout the day. It dropped from $6.14 to $5.52 during this two-hour window.
April 13 (18:00–20:00 UTC)
The token suddenly fell to $1.38 in the first hour, then to as low as $0.52 in the next — losing over 90% of its value in a single day. Social media erupted with theories, including a rug pull, insider dumping, forced liquidation or exchange manipulation.
April 13 (20:00–22:00 UTC)
Early speculation surrounded a rug pull, sparked by a screenshot of a deleted Telegram channel. This was later debunked, as the deleted group was not Matra’s official channel. Cointelegraph has confirmed that the project’s Telegram is active at the time of writing.
Mantra shared its first statement on X, but the brief update was met with immediate backlash from the community.
April 13 (22:00–00:00 UTC)
Mantra co-founder and CEO John Patrick Mullin posted a more detailed statement on X, claiming OM’s market action was triggered by “reckless forced closures initiated by centralized exchanges on OM account holders.”
“The timing and depth of the crash suggest that a very sudden closure of account positions was initiated without sufficient warning or notice,” Mullin said.
“That this happened during low-liquidity hours on a Sunday evening UTC (early morning Asia time) points to a degree of negligence at best, or possibly intentional market positioning taken by centralized exchanges.”
Related: Atkins becomes next SEC chair: What’s next for the crypto industry
April 14 (00:00–02:00 UTC)
In the days leading up to the crash, at least 17 wallets had deposited a total of 43.6 million OM (worth $227 million) into Binance and OKX, according to blockchain tracker Lookonchain.
Two of these wallets were labeled as belonging to Laser Digital, a strategic Mantra investor, by blockchain data platform Arkham Intelligence. The label triggered further speculation and allegations against Laser Digital. At the time of writing, the accuracy of Arkham’s labels has not been confirmed, and the platform has not responded to Cointelegraph’s request to clarify.
Meanwhile, Mullin replied to community questions under his X post, suggesting internal findings pointed to one exchange as the main cause of the collapse while stating that it was not Binance.
April 14 (02:00–05:00 UTC)
Both Binance and OKX responded to the situation. Binance said, “Binance is aware that $OM, the native token of MANTRA, has experienced significant price volatility. Our initial findings indicate that the developments over the past day are a result of cross-exchange liquidations.”
OKX CEO Star Xu posted on X, “It’s a big scandal to the whole crypto industry. All of the onchain unlock and deposit data is public, all major exchanges’ collateral and liquidation data can be investigated. OKX will make all of the reports ready!”
OKX stated, “Following the incident, we have conducted investigations and identified major changes to the MANTRA token’s tokenomics model since Oct 2024, based on both publicly available on-chain data and internal exchange data.
“Our investigation also uncovered that several on-chain addresses have been executing potentially coordinated large-scale deposits and withdrawals across various centralized exchanges since Mar 2025.”
April 14 (05:00–12:00 UTC)
Laser Digital denied ownership of the wallets tagged by Arkham and reported by Lookonchain, calling them mislabeled.
“We want to be absolutely clear: Laser has not deposited any OM tokens to OKX. The wallets being referenced are not Laser wallets,” the company said on X, sharing three token addresses to support its claim that no sales had occurred.
Lookonchain also identified another wallet using Arkham data that had remained dormant for a year before becoming active just hours before the crash. The wallet was labeled as belonging to Shane Shin, a founding partner of Shorooq Partners, and received 2 million OM shortly before the collapse.
April 14 (12:00–13:00 UTC)
Mullin joined Cointelegraph’s Chain Reaction show and denied reports that key Mantra investors dumped OM before the collapse. He dismissed allegations that the team controlled 90% of the supply.
“I think it’s baseless. We posted a community transparency report last week, and it shows all the different wallets,” Mullin said, noting the dual-token setup across Ethereum and the Mantra mainnet. Additionally, he reassured users that OM token recovery is the team’s primary concern.
“We’re still in the early stages of putting together this plan for a potential buyback of tokens,” he said.
Related: The whale, the hack and the psychological earthquake that hit HEX
April 14 (13:00–16:00 UTC)
More theories started emerging. Onchain Bureau claimed market makers at FalconX were responsible for the price crash. They blamed it on the loan option model — a service allowing market makers to borrow tokens and execute guaranteed purchases at contract expiry.
“Instead of paying the market maker with a monthly retainer fee, they had a contract signed saying that they would be able to enforce a buy of, for example, 1M tokens at $1 by contract expiry. Clearly, when the contract expired, they enforced the contract and made their bags,” Onchain Bureau said in a now-deleted X post.
Shortly afterward, Onchain Bureau followed up, saying FalconX had reached out and denied being Mantra’s market maker. Mullin also responded to the post, stating that FalconX was not the project’s market maker. He described them instead as a trading partner.
Meanwhile, crypto detective ZachXBT weighed in, claiming that individuals linked to Reef Finance had allegedly been seeking massive OM-backed loans in the days leading up to the crash.
What we know of the OM crash
Several theories have been thrown around. Initial fears ranged from a rug pull to insider trading, which Mantra has denied in several instances by sharing wallet addresses. The team has responded to online comments and media inquiries to assure that they haven’t run away.
Mantra has also denied that the price collapse was a result of an expiring deal with market maker FalconX. Some fingers were pointed toward Laser Digital, which said it is a result of mislabeling at Arkham Intelligence.
Arkham Intelligence has not responded to Cointelegraph’s request to clarify its labels. However, the Laser Digital tags on Arkham are a low-confidence prediction made by an AI model, not a verified entity with a blue checkmark.
In the days following the OM crash, Mullin stated that he would burn all of his team’s tokens. He later said that he would start by putting his own allocation on the line.
Mullin announced that Mantra would publish a post-mortem and followed with a “statement of events” on April 16. The team reiterated that no project-led token sales occurred and that all team allocations remain locked. The statement doubled down on Mantra’s plan to introduce a token buyback and burn program but lacked new information on the cause of the crash.
Mullin told Cointelegraph that Mantra has tapped an unnamed blockchain analyst to investigate the underlying cause of the crash, though details remain confidential at this time.
Magazine: Memecoin degeneracy is funding groundbreaking anti-aging research
