Was the 90% collapse of Mantra’s OM token a market mishap or a calculated exit? A deep dive into OTC trades, the Coffeezilla interview, and what’s next for investors.

Disclaimer
This article is for educational and informational purposes only. It is not financial advice, nor is it a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any cryptocurrency, including OM (Mantra). Cryptocurrency investments carry high risks, and prices can be volatile. Always conduct your own research (DYOR) and consult a qualified financial advisor before making investment decisions.

Introduction

On April 13, 2025, Mantra’s OM token plummeted over 90% in under an hour, erasing $5.5 billion in market capitalization. From a high of $6.33 to a low of $0.37, the crash stunned investors, evoking Terra’s LUNA collapse in 2022. Mantra co-founder JP Mullin blamed “reckless forced liquidations” by centralized exchanges, claiming he was on a WiFi-less flight to Seoul during the chaos. A YouTube interview with crypto sleuth Coffeezilla, however, revealed a darker truth: months of over-the-counter (OTC) trades—private token sales—that artificially inflated OM’s price, setting the stage for a devastating fall. Was the liquidation excuse a scapegoat for a slow-motion rug pull? This article breaks down the crash, the role of OTC trades, and lessons for investors.


The Crash and Mullin’s Alibi

The $OM token’s collapse was swift and brutal. On April 13, trading volume spiked to $6 billion, with just $76 million in long positions liquidated, per Coinglass. Yet, the crash erased $5.5 billion in market cap, dropping OM from $6.33 to $0.37. Mantra’s team, led by JP Mullin, pointed to “reckless forced liquidations” by an unnamed centralized exchange, claiming positions were closed without warning. This narrative is a convenient scapegoat. With only $76 million in liquidations, it’s mathematically implausible that leveraged positions alone triggered a $5.5 billion wipeout, especially given OM’s thin liquidity and reliance on market maker support via OTC trades. The crash’s timing—Sunday evening UTC, a low-liquidity period—amplified the damage, but the root cause lies elsewhere.


Mullin’s personal alibi fueled skepticism: he claimed he was on a WiFi-less flight to Seoul for the BTCON RWA Summit when the chaos unfolded. “I’ve just woken up, and I’m getting the complete breakdown of what’s going on,” he posted on X. Critics like @videorip called it a “convenient” dodge, speculating a “mega scam” or rogue team member’s rug pull. On-chain data showing $227 million in OM deposits to exchanges pre-crash—4.5% of circulating supply—suggests insiders anticipated trouble, undermining both the liquidation excuse and Mullin’s hands-off claim.


What Are OTC Trades? The Mechanics Behind the Pump

Over-the-counter (OTC) trades are private transactions where large volumes of tokens, like OM, are sold directly between parties—often a project team and market makers or institutional investors—outside public exchanges. Unlike transparent exchange trades, OTC deals occur off-chain or through brokers at negotiated prices, typically discounted (e.g., 30-50% below market). In crypto, teams use OTC trades to move significant token volumes without crashing the market price, which could happen on thin order books. However, these trades lack transparency, hiding sales from retail investors and enabling potential manipulation.


In Mantra’s case, OTC trades were central to the price pump. Coffeezilla’s April 15, 2025, YouTube interview with Mullin revealed that Mantra sold $30-45 million worth of OM tokens in OTC deals, primarily to market makers, at a 30-50% discount. Of this, $5-10 million in stablecoins (USDT/USDC) was “reinjected” into the market to buy back OM on exchanges, creating artificial demand. This propped up OM’s price to $6.33 while masking its paper-thin organic liquidity. When market makers—who bought discounted tokens—stepped back, the lack of genuine demand triggered the 90% crash. Blaming $76 million in liquidations deflects from this structural flaw: OTC-driven price support, not leverage, set the stage for collapse.

Coffeezilla labeled it price manipulation, arguing that buybacks lured investors into a false sense of security. Mullin countered, claiming it was “healthy market support” to “protect downside” or “support upside” over months. Yet, OM’s 400% rally in 2024, driven by low social media buzz and high market maker activity, tells a different story. On X, @Soul_Eater_43 called the OTC funds a “fake valuation” that crumbled under pressure. Mantra’s tokenomics, with a doubled supply (1.77 billion tokens) after a 2024 DAO vote and 90% reportedly held by insiders, gave the team outsized control, leaving retail investors vulnerable.


The Token Burn: A Desperate PR Move?

Facing backlash, Mullin announced on April 15 that he would burn his 772,000 OM token allocation, with other team members potentially following. He framed it as a commitment to the community, responding to calls to delay token unlocks (set for 2027). Investors on X were unimpressed. “Too little, too late,” wrote @CryptoSkeptic, while others demanded accountability for the $5.5 billion loss. Token burns reduce supply, theoretically boosting value, but OM’s crash was a trust issue, not just economics. The burn doesn’t address the OTC trades that inflated the price or the $227 million in pre-crash exchange deposits, which fuel suspicions of insider dumping. OKX CEO Star Xu called it a “big scandal,” promising transparent reports to uncover the truth.


LUNA 2.0? Lessons from the Crash

The OM crash mirrors Terra’s LUNA collapse in 2022, which erased $40 billion. Both projects hyped real-world asset (RWA) tokenization, partnered with big names (Mantra with Google Cloud and DAMAC Group), and faced insider manipulation allegations. Like LUNA, OM’s 200% post-crash bounce to $0.73 is fragile, with RSI signaling weak momentum and risks of further drops. The lesson: crypto’s decentralization promise often hides centralized control. Mantra’s team reportedly held 90% of OM’s supply, amplified by OTC deals and low transparency. As @AltcoinGordon noted on X, “This is one of the biggest scams I’ve seen in crypto.”


What’s Next for Investors?

Mantra’s RWA tech remains promising, but trust is shattered. Mullin’s planned community call and OKX’s reports may clarify, but caution is key. Here’s how to protect yourself:


1.  Verify On-Chain Data: Track wallet movements on Etherscan or Mantra’s L1 for insider selling. Mullin claims team tokens are locked; verify it.

2.  Avoid FOMO: OM’s 200% bounce is tempting, but technicals suggest downside risk. Wait for transparency.

3.  Demand OTC Details: Push for clarity on OTC buyers and liquidation claims. Why was liquidity so thin?

4.  Diversify: Don’t overbet on RWA tokens. Spread risk across BTC, ETH, or other assets.


Conclusion

The OM crash exposes the dangers of centralized tokenomics in DeFi. JP Mullin’s “no WiFi” alibi and token burn do little to erase the stain of $30-45 million in OTC trades that pumped OM’s price, only to collapse when liquidity vanished. Blaming $76 million in liquidations for a $5.5 billion loss is a flimsy scapegoat—insider sales and artificial price support, exposed by Coffeezilla, are the real culprits.

With investors burned and Mantra’s reputation in tatters, only radical transparency can rebuild trust.

For now, verify everything and trust nothing!


Disclaimer

The information in this article is provided for educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or legal advice. Cryptocurrency markets are highly volatile, and past performance is not indicative of future results. Before making any investment decisions, conduct thorough research (DYOR) and seek advice from a licensed financial professional. The CryptoStrategist are not responsible for any financial losses incurred from actions taken based on this content.

What’s your take on $OM’s crash: scam or misfortune?

Share your thoughts below, and follow TheCryptoStrategist for more crypto insights.

‼️Always DYOR before investing‼️