OKX Accuses Mantra of OM Holdings Transparency Issues in Escalating Dispute

Trust in crypto isn't built on promises—it's built on proof. A major exchange is now demanding exactly that.

Transparency Under Fire

OKX has publicly challenged Mantra over the transparency of its OM token holdings, escalating a simmering dispute into a public spectacle. The core allegation is straightforward: a lack of clear, verifiable on-chain proof for the assets backing the token. In an industry where 'trust me' is the default setting for too many projects, this call for accountability cuts through the usual noise.

The Stakes for Tokenomics

This isn't just corporate bickering. For investors, clear treasury reporting is a fundamental pillar of token value. Opaque holdings can mask dilution risks or shaky backing, turning a digital asset into a faith-based exercise—something the sector has too much of already. It’s a classic finance move: talk up the future while being fuzzy on the present.

Market Mechanics in the Spotlight

The dispute throws a harsh light on the often-opaque mechanics of project treasuries and exchange listings. When major platforms start airing grievances publicly, it signals a shift. The era of polite behind-the-scenes dealing may be giving way to a new demand for visible, auditable proof. After all, in crypto, the code is supposed to be the law—and the ledger the judge.

A cynical take? Welcome to crypto governance, where transparency is the first casualty of a bull market and the first demand in a dispute. The truth, as always, will be on the chain—or it won't be anywhere.

Migration Timeline Dispute Triggers Transparency Demands

Mullin criticized the lack of coordination in the publication of migration dates by OKX. He mentioned such statements caused unnecessary confusion in the market. He also wrote about an OKX post from 8 December calling the information inaccurate. According to Mullin, the exchange exchanged information that did not reflect the official timeline of MANTRA.

On December 5, 2025, OKX published a statement entitled “OKX to support OM crypto migration”. This statement contained multiple factual errors and misrepresentations not present in official MANTRA governance proposals. We are incredibly concerned by this development, which shows…

The MANTRA CEO also urged OKX to reveal its OM holdings. He asked for the exchange for user-owned tokens to be separated from tokens held on its balance sheet. Mullin presented the request as part of regulatory and compliance requirements. He added that large movements of tokens need to be checked.

OKX responded by denying the accusations. The exchange said it was setting the record straight after MANTRA put out a misleading narrative. Before the April crash, OKX claimed to have noticed unusual trading activity involving OM. It said the activity posed a risk to the platform and its users.

According to OKX, various linked accounts used heavy holdings of OM as collateral. The accounts are borrowing large amounts of USDT using margin trading. The exchange said those funds were then used to buy more OM. This activity allegedly drove up prices artificially.

OKX Says Risk Controls Triggered Before OM Price Collapse

OKX said that its risk team flagged the behavior and requested the account holders to take corrective action. The exchange reported that the account holders ignored these requests. To limit exposure, OKX said it took control of the related accounts. Soon after, OM prices collapsed across markets.

The exchange claimed to have liquidated only a small portion of OM. The exchange stated that its Security Fund absorbed the losses from the crash. OKX added that it has filed evidence with regulators and law enforcement agencies. It also said several legal proceedings are underway.

OKX raised additional questions around the token concentration. It asked where extraordinarily large OM balances came from. The exchange said some groups seemed to own a significant percentage of the circulating supply. It suggested that concentration increased the systemic risk.

Outside analysis has provided some insight into the April collapse. Taran Sabharwal, chief executive of crypto trading firm STIX, explained a possible scenario of the crash. He said margin borrowing against OM collateral probably amplified the price increase. Automatic liquidations then ordered a cascading sell-off on exchanges.

Sabharwal speculated that legal pressure might be on unfreezing accounts. Mullin came out publicly at the time and denied the claim. He said that neither MANTRA nor he has any pending legal action against OKX. Mullin said the dispute includes other big OM traders and became public after confusion over the migration timeline.