YEREVAN (CoinChapter.com) — In late 2024, Mantra changed OM’s tokenomics by increasing its circulating supply and accelerating inflation. These moves introduced new risks that prompted trading platforms to adjust how they handled the token. Shortly after, large onchain transfers from major wallets began surfacing, raising questions about whether internal strategy or external reactions triggered what followed.
Whale Wallets Deposit 43.6M OM Before Crash
Meanwhile, blockchain analytics platform Lookonchain reported that 17 wallets deposited 43.6 million OM into centralized exchanges starting April 7, 2025. At the time, this amounted to $227 million and represented 4.5% of OM’s circulating supply.
Two of these wallets, according to Arkham Intelligence tags cited by Lookonchain, were directly linked to Laser Digital—a strategic investor in Mantra.
Spot On Chain also identified 14.27 million OM deposited to OKX just three days before the crash. These wallets had acquired over 84 million OM in March, spending nearly $565 million.
Following the collapse, their remaining holdings were worth only $62.2 million. As a result, these investors recorded a combined unrealized loss of over $400 million. Spot On Chain added that the entities may have hedged positions elsewhere, but their selloffs still contributed to the sudden price breakdown.
As a result, Mantra’s OM token price dropped more than 90% on April 13 to below $0.50 within an hour, erasing over $5.5 billion from its market cap.
Mullin Blames Exchanges, Denies Loan Claims in Crash
John Patrick Mullin, co-founder of Mantra, said the OM token crash resulted from centralized exchanges liquidating user positions without warning. He pointed to one specific platform but confirmed, “the centralized exchange in question wasn’t Binance.”
Mullin denied accusations that the team had used OM as loan collateral or orchestrated a rug pull, stating,
“The team did not have a loan outstanding.”
He added,
“Tokens remain locked and subject to the published vesting periods. OM’s tokenomics remain intact.”
According to Mullin, the forced closures took place during “low-liquidity hours—Sunday night UTC, early morning in Asia,” which he described as evidence of “negligence at best, or possibly intentional market positioning.” He also said, “No locked tokens were moved,” and confirmed that “the MANTRA team, advisors, or investors did not sell OM during the crash.” Mullin blamed “reckless forced closures” and said the team is investigating how centralized exchanges handled OM positions. He assured users that the tokenomics are “unchanged and publicly available.”
Binance Links OM Token Crash to Liquidations Across Platforms
Binance released a separate update. It said the OM token crash was due to cross-exchange liquidations. The exchange confirmed it had risk controls in place since October 2024.
Those controls included lower leverage options. In January 2025, Binance started warning OM traders about token supply changes. These alerts appeared as pop-ups on the trading page.
The platform explained that OM had gone through tokenomics changes earlier this year. Binance stated it was not responsible for the price drop but monitored all OM trading activities.
Next, OKX responded to the market disruption by confirming it had detected abnormal OM volatility around 2:00 AM HKT. To reduce exposure, the exchange updated its risk controls and placed a warning label on OM’s trading page. OKX advised users to act cautiously and conduct independent research.
Soon after, OKX executive Star called the situation a scandal for the entire crypto industry. He said the data on unlocks, deposits, and collateral across major exchanges is publicly available and should be investigated. Star pledged that OKX would prepare and release full transparency reports on the OM incident.
OM Crash Pulls Down Real World Asset Market
Following the OM token collapse, the Real World Asset (RWA) market experienced a steep decline. According to CoinMarketCap data, the total market cap dropped by 12.52%, falling to $41.00 billion within 24 hours. The OM token alone plunged 87.71%, marking it as the most visited RWA asset during the crash.
The market-wide impact extended across major RWA tokens. Tokens like HBAR, ONDO, LINK, and AVAX also posted noticeable declines, although far less severe. OM’s drastic drop acted as the main catalyst, eroding overall confidence in tokenized real-world assets and sparking sell-offs across multiple platforms.
At the same time, trading volume in the RWA sector surged 91.41%, hitting $4.08 billion. This spike reflected the panic-driven trading behavior as investors reacted to the OM dump. CoinMarketCap charts also showed a sharp inflection point on April 13-14, illustrating the rapid downturn in asset valuation across the sector.
Ripple and Boston Consulting Group previously projected RWA growth. They estimated the market could reach $18.9 trillion by 2033. Despite the drop, RWAs remained above $20 billion in onchain value.