The ongoing conflict between OKX and Mantra has escalated into a legal confrontation, with both parties exchanging accusations over misleading narratives and token migration timelines. This dispute has not only involved law enforcement but has also drawn attention to the intricacies of token management and communication within the crypto space.
OKX’s Accusations and Market Implications
Recently, OKX revealed through a public statement that the Mantra team has allegedly been spreading misleading information about the OM token. OKX claims that it has identified evidence of “multiple connected and colluding accounts” using large quantities of OM as collateral to borrow USDT, artificially inflating OM’s price. These accounts, when contacted by OKX to rectify the situation, allegedly refused to comply, leading OKX to take control of the accounts to mitigate risk. Subsequently, the price of OM plummeted.
OM Token Price Surge and Crash
OKX stressed that despite liquidating a minor portion of OM, losses from the crash were covered by the OKX Security Fund. Moreover, third-party analyses suggest that the drastic fall in OM’s price was significantly influenced by perpetual trading activities outside of OKX’s environment. Questions were raised regarding the origin of the unusually large quantities of OM, bringing the concentration of supply into the spotlight.
Mantra’s Response and Migration Timeline Dispute
On the other hand, Mantra CEO JP Mullin has been vocal about his concerns, urging OM holders to withdraw their tokens from OKX. Mullin accuses the exchange of providing incorrect migration dates, claiming that the ERC-20 OM token cannot be migrated until its deprecation on January 15, 2026, rendering OKX’s proposed timeline infeasible.
Calls for Transparency
Mullin further insists that OKX disclose the number of OM tokens it holds for users and for itself, emphasizing the need for compliance and transparency. He argues that making the dispute public serves the community’s best interest, fostering transparency.
Legal Proceedings and Future Outlook
In a December 10 letter, OKX countered Mullin’s public statements, arguing that they could harm the exchange and its users. OKX refuted claims that legal risks hindered cooperation and warned that blocking migration could unfairly penalize its users. Meanwhile, Mullin reiterated that the chain upgrade and token split would occur post-deprecation, requiring no user action.
As the legal pressure mounts, OKX has submitted comprehensive evidence to regulators, indicating that multiple litigations and legal proceedings are in progress. For OM holders, the situation remains uncertain, highlighting the fragile nature of trust between exchanges, token issuers, and users when communication and timelines are misaligned.
