The conflict between cryptocurrency exchange OKX and the Mantra project has intensified, with OKX publicly accusing the Mantra team of spreading a "misleading narrative" regarding the OM token migration. The exchange confirmed that law enforcement is now involved, and multiple legal proceedings are underway.
At the core of the dispute is a disagreement over the migration timeline for the OM token from an ERC-20 standard to Mantra's native chain. Mantra CEO JP Mullin has repeatedly warned OM holders to withdraw tokens from OKX, accusing the exchange of publishing incorrect migration dates. Mullin asserts that a migration in December 2025 is impossible, as ERC-20 OM cannot be fully deprecated until January 15, 2026. He claims OKX reversed the order outlined in governance proposals, causing confusion.
In a December 10 letter, OKX pushed back against Mullin's public comments, warning they could cause serious harm to the exchange and its users. OKX stated it supports the migration and asked Mantra to clarify the details of Proposal 26, rejecting claims that legal risks prevented cooperation.
Simultaneously, OKX revealed it uncovered and acted against a sophisticated price manipulation scheme involving OM. The exchange's security systems detected that multiple connected accounts used large quantities of OM as collateral to borrow significant amounts of USDT, artificially inflating the token's price. After the account holders refused to cooperate with requests to correct the issue, OKX restricted the accounts. The OM price subsequently collapsed.
OKX emphasized it liquidated only a small portion of OM and that losses from the crash were fully covered by the OKX Security Fund. The exchange also cited third-party analysis suggesting the sharp drop was largely driven by perpetual trading activity on other platforms. OKX raised questions about the origin of the unusually large OM quantities used in the scheme.
Mullin responded publicly on X, reiterating the migration timeline and renewing a request for OKX to disclose how many OM tokens it holds for users and on its own balance sheet, calling this necessary for compliance. He defended his public stance, arguing transparency was in the community's best interest.
With migration details in dispute and legal pressure mounting, the situation leaves OM holders in limbo, highlighting the fragility of trust when exchanges and token issuers fall out of sync.
