Mantra’s OM implodes: OTC loops, emergency buybacks, and what I saw in the order books

How the crash unfolded

• OM fell from about $6.30** to below **$0.50 in under an hour during thin Asian trading. Mantra’s own “Statement of Events” blames forced liquidations after large holders used OM as collateral.
• Exchange flows tell the setup: CoinDesk traced 43.6 million OM (about $227M) sent to Binance and OKX in the three days before the sell-off. With that much supply primed, bids collapsed fast. OKX’s founder Star Xu called it “a major scandal” for the industry.
• Market cap loss ran over $5B in roughly four hours, a speed that rivaled Terra’s 2022 unwind.

The OTC loop that primed the fall

• Through 2024, Mantra raised an estimated $25–30M** selling OM at 30–50$10M of that cash went to market makers to buy OM back on exchanges—a circular “support” bid funded by private sales.
• When those bids were pulled or overwhelmed, the market had to absorb real supply without a safety net. That’s why the chart fell like a stone once the big transfers hit.
• Some investors, like Laser Digital, publicly denied dumping and shared wallet addresses. But reports cite two Laser-tagged wallets in that 43.6M token batch, keeping skepticism alive.
• The team now pitches another buyback-and-burn plan, echoing the same playbook that failed days earlier (CoinDesk/Cointelegraph/Decrypt coverage).

CoffeeZilla vs. Mantra: what changed in the interview

• CoffeeZilla pressed Mullin about a broker “Mr P” offering a 45M-token deal before the crash. Mullin denied direct ties but admitted Mantra used OTC-plus-buyback loops “to support price.”
• He claimed the team controls only ~1% of unlocked supply and used no leverage. On-chain data still shows OM’s float was concentrated enough that forced sales hit like a hammer.
• Mullin conceded that every dollar injected “has a positive impact on price,” effectively confirming the circular bid and the distorted depth.

What to watch next

• Disclosures: Will Mantra publish full OTC agreements, market-maker mandates, and the identities behind the 43.6M-token transfer?
• Liquidity: Order-book depth remains thin; even modest unlocks could trigger more forced sales if fresh “support” bids aren’t real.
• Burn plan specifics: A draft “comprehensive burn” exists, but there’s no timeline or audit of team wallets to prove supply cuts.
• Custody and audits: Confidence hinges on third-party verification of treasury wallets and exchange cooperation to flag repeat large transfers.

Until those details go public, OM trades under the same opaque setup that let a single hour wipe out billions. If you’re holding or trading it, watch flows and disclosures—not just headlines.