OKX Accuses Mantra of Misleading OM Holders as Migration Dispute Turns Legal
Another day, another crypto custody spat—only this time, lawyers are getting involved.
Token Migration Gone Wrong
What started as a routine token migration has escalated into a full-blown legal dispute. The exchange alleges the project misled its community about the process, leaving holders in the lurch. No specifics on the misleading claims were detailed, but the implication is clear: someone wasn't reading the fine print.
From Community Update to Court Filing
The timeline is classic crypto. Announcement, confusion, frustration, and now, legal threats. The exchange isn't just talking—it's preparing to take action, suggesting the breakdown in communication is beyond repair. It's a stark reminder that in decentralized finance, central points of failure often boil down to human communication.
Who Protects the Token Holder?
This public accusation throws a harsh light on the murky responsibilities in the token ecosystem. Projects promise self-sovereignty, but when migrations falter, holders often find themselves with nowhere to turn. It's the age-old finance story—innovation outpaces protection—just with more blockchain jargon.
As the gavel prepares to fall on this dispute, the entire sector watches. Will this set a precedent for project accountability, or just become another footnote in crypto's long history of 'buyer beware'? Either way, it's a costly lesson in the price of progress.
The standoff between OKX and MANTRA just took a sharper turn.
Today, OKX broke its silence with a public statement accusing the Mantra team of spreading a “misleading narrative” around OM and confirmed that law enforcement is now involved.
What started as a disagreement over a token migration timeline is quickly turning into something much bigger.
OKX Alleges Collusion Behind OM’s Price Surge and Crash
In its statement, OKX said it uncovered evidence that “multiple connected and colluding accounts used large quantities of OM as collateral to borrow significant amounts of USDT, artificially pushing OM’s price up.”
The exchange said its risk team flagged the activity early, contacted the account holders, and asked them to correct the issue. “They refused to cooperate,” OKX said.
To limit exposure, OKX took control of the related accounts. Soon after, OM’s price collapsed.
OKX stressed that it liquidated only a very small portion of OM and that losses from the crash were fully absorbed by the OKX Security Fund. The exchange also pointed to third-party analysis suggesting the sharp drop was largely driven by perpetual trading activity that happened outside OKX.
“There has been no explanation of where those unusually large quantities of OM originated,” OKX added, raising questions about supply concentration.
The OM Migration Dispute
The latest response follows repeated warnings from Mantra CEO JP Mullin, who urged OM holders to withdraw tokens from OKX.
Mullin accused the exchange of publishing incorrect and misleading migration dates and said a December 2025 migration is not possible. According to him, ERC-20 OM cannot be migrated before it is fully deprecated on January 15, 2026, making OKX’s proposed timeline unworkable.
He also claimed the exchange reversed the order outlined in governance proposals and said the lack of coordination has caused confusion for holders.
OKX’s December 10 Letter
In a December 10 letter to the Mantra team, OKX pushed back against public comments from CEO JP Mullin and warned that those statements could cause serious harm to the exchange and its users. OKX said it supported the OM migration and asked Mantra to clarify Proposal 26.
The exchange also rejected Mullin’s claim that legal risks prevented cooperation and warned that blocking migration could unfairly penalize OKX users.
Mullin Went Public Again
Mullin published his response on X.
He said ERC-20 OM will be deprecated on January 15, 2026, and that the chain upgrade and 1:4 split WOULD happen afterward. He confirmed the redenomination would occur at the protocol level and require no user action.
Mullin also renewed his request for OKX to disclose how many OM tokens it holds for users and on its own balance sheet, saying this was necessary for compliance. He defended making the dispute public, arguing transparency was in the community’s best interest.
Legal Pressure Builds
OKX confirmed it has submitted full evidence and documentation to regulators and multiple litigations and legal proceedings are currently underway.
For OM holders, clarity remains elusive. With migration details disputed and legal pressure mounting, the dispute highlights how quickly trust can fracture when exchanges, token issuers, and timelines fall out of sync.
