CoreWeave’s $9 billion plan to acquire Core Scientific is facing growing resistance, and crypto markets are paying attention.
The unexpected shareholder pushback has coincided with a sharp rally in AI tokens, suggesting that investors see deeper implications beyond the boardroom.
CoreWeave Builds Out AI Infrastructure
CoreWeave is one of the largest AI infrastructure providers in the United States. In June, it proposed an all-stock acquisition of Core Scientific, a Bitcoin mining firm now repositioning itself as a data center player for AI workloads.
But that plan is seeing pushback. The deal seemed to be going smoothly, until Two Seas Capital, Core Scientific’s largest shareholder, objected.
Two Seas Capital has a 6.3% stake in Core Scientific. Today, the firm announced it would vote against the deal. The firm believes the offer dramatically undervalues Core Scientific and exposes shareholders to unnecessary risk.
“We invested in Core Scientific because we believe in [its] ability to create value in building…infrastructure at scale. We are therefore disappointed that the Board of Directors has chosen to sell the Company to CoreWeave. From our perspective as a shareholder of Core Scientific, the proposed sale materially undervalues the Company and unnecessarily exposes its shareholders to substantial economic risk,” Two Seas’ statement read.
On the surface, Core Scientific has plenty of good reasons to sign this AI development deal with CoreWeave. The firm’s revenues fell dramatically in early 2025, and CoreWeave is preparing to pay $9 billion for it.
However, this offering consists of CoreWeave stock, not fiat currency.
This deal is also uncollared. So, Core Scientific shareholders like Two Seas won’t receive a share adjustment if CoreWeave’s stock price drops. Simply put, the firm needs more assurances than that.
While CoreWeave is a major player in AI cloud services—reportedly one of OpenAI’s preferred GPU providers—it faces its own vulnerabilities.
The firm heavily depends on a handful of high-profile clients, and its valuation is tethered to volatile market sentiment around AI.
Any pullback in demand, shift in regulatory environment, or funding shortfall could impact Core Scientific’s stock price.
So, Two Seas’ position is clear. It’s not rejecting the merger outright, but it wants a deal with more guarantees or a higher asking price.
CoreWeave’s first contract with Core Scientific dates back to 2018, when both were crypto mining companies.
CoreWeave (“Atlantic Crypto”) contracted Core Scientific for GPU hosting to mine Ethereum while Core Scientific mined Bitcoin.
AI Tokens React as Investors Sniff Out Scarcity Narrative
Shortly after Two Seas’ letter went public, the crypto market’s AI sector surged. The total market cap of AI coins jumped over 6% in a matter of hours, according to CoinGecko data.
The market’s reaction reflects a deeper narrative. CoreWeave’s aggressive $9 billion offer and Two Seas’ firm resistance both point to the rising strategic value of data centers and power capacity in the AI era.
With centralized AI infrastructure constrained and contested, investors may be rotating into decentralized AI platforms that promise scalability without single points of failure.
In crypto, narratives drive flows. The public friction between CoreWeave and Two Seas became a narrative trigger—reinvigorating interest in the AI token space.
While this shareholder dispute may resolve through a revised deal or protracted negotiation, the message is already out that AI infrastructure is valuable, limited, and contested.
Overall, the traders should expect more capital rotation into AI-native tokens as narratives shift toward long-term infrastructure plays.
The collapse of the MANTRA (OM) token has left investors reeling, with many facing significant losses. As analysts comb through the causes of the collapse, many questions remain.
BeInCrypto consulted industry experts to identify five critical red flags behind MANTRA’s downfall and reveal strategies investors can adopt to steer clear of similar pitfalls in the future.
MANTRA (OM) Crash: What Investors Missed and How to Avoid Future Losses
On April 13, BeInCrypto broke the news of OM’s 90% crash. The collapse raised several concerns, with investors accusing the team of orchestrating a pump-and-dump scheme. Experts believe that there were many early signs of trouble.
In addition, the project adopted an inflationary tokenomic model with an uncapped supply, replacing the previous hard cap. As part of this transition, the total token supply was also increased to 1.7 billion.
However, the move wasn’t without drawbacks. According to Jean Rausis, co-founder of SMARDEX, tokenomics was a point of concern in the OM collapse.
“The project doubled its token supply to 1.77 billion in 2024 and shifted to an inflationary model, which diluted its original holders. Complex vesting favored insiders, while low circulating supply and massive FDV fueled hype and price manipulation,” Jean Rausis told BeInCrypto.
Moreover, the team’s control over the OM supply also raised centralization concerns. Experts believe this was also a factor that could have led to the alleged price manipulation.
“About 90% of OM tokens were held by the team, indicating a high level of centralization that could potentially lead to manipulation. The team also maintained control over governance, which undermined the project’s decentralized nature,” said Phil Fogel, co-founder of Cork.
Phil Fogel acknowledged that a concentrated token supply isn’t always a red flag. However, it’s crucial for investors to know who holds large amounts, their lock-up terms, and whether their involvement aligns with the project’s decentralization goals.
Moreover, Ming Wu, the founder of RabbitX, also argued that analyzing this data is essential to uncover any potential risks that could undermine the project in the long term.
“Tools like bubble maps can help identify potential risks related to token distribution,” Wu advised.
2. OM Price Action
2025 has been marked as the year of significant market volatility. The broader macroeconomic pressures have weighed heavily on the market, with the majority of the coins experiencing steep losses. Yet, OM’s price action was relatively stable until the latest crash.
OM vs. TOTAL Market Performance. Source: TradingView
“The biggest red flag was simply the price action. The whole market was going down, and nobody cared about MANTRA, and yet its token price somehow kept pumping in unnatural patterns – pump, flat, pump, flat again,” Jean Rausis disclosed.
He added that this was a clear sign of a potential issue or problem with the project. Nevertheless, he noted that identifying the differentiating price action would require some technical analysis know-how. Thus, investors lacking the knowledge would have easily missed it.
Despite this, Rausis highlighted that even the untrained eye could find other signs that something was off, ultimately leading to the crash.
Strategies to Protect Yourself
While investors remained optimistic about OM’s resilience amid a market downturn, this ended up costing them millions. Eric He, LBank’s Community Angel Officer, and Risk Control Adviser emphasized the importance of proactive risk management to avoid OM-style collapses.
“First, diversification is key—spreading capital across projects limits single-token exposure. Stop-loss triggers (e.g., 10-20% below buy price) can automate damage control in volatile conditions,” Eric shared with BeInCrypto.
Ming Wu had a similar perspective, emphasizing the importance of avoiding over-allocation to a single token. The executive explained that a diversified investment strategy helps mitigate risk and enhances overall portfolio stability.
“Investors can use perpetual futures as a risk management tool to hedge against potential price declines in their holdings,” Wu remarked.
Meanwhile, Phil Fogel advised focusing on a token’s liquidity. Key factors include the float size, price sensitivity to sell orders, and who can significantly impact the market.
3. Project Fundamentals
Experts also highlighted major discrepancies in MANTRA’s TVL. Eric He pointed out a significant gap between the token’s fully diluted valuation (FDV) and the TVL. OM’s FDV reached $9.5 billion, while its TVL was only $13 million, indicating a potential overvaluation.
“A $9.5 billion valuation against $13 million TVL, screamed instability,” Forest Bai, co-founder of Foresight Ventures, stated.
Notably, several issues were also raised regarding the airdrop. Jean Rausis called the airdrop a “mess.” He cited many issues, including delays, frequent changes to eligibility rules, and the disqualification of half the participants. Meanwhile, suspected bots were not removed.
“The airdrop disproportionately favored insiders while excluding genuine supporters, reflecting a lack of fairness,” Phil Fogel reiterated.
The criticism expanded further as Fogel pointed out the team’s alleged associations with questionable entities and ties to questionable initial coin offerings (ICOs), raising doubts about the project’s credibility. Eric He also suggested that MANTRA was allegedly tied to gambling platforms in the past.
Strategies to Protect Yourself
Forest Bai underscored the importance of verifying the project team’s credentials, reviewing the project roadmap, and monitoring on-chain activity to ensure transparency. He also advised investors to assess community engagement and regulatory compliance to gauge the project’s long-term viability.
Ming Wu also stressed distinguishing between real growth and artificially inflated metrics.
“It’s important to differentiate real growth from activity that’s artificially inflated through incentives or airdrops, unsustainable tactics like ‘selling a dollar for 90 cents’ may generate short-term metrics but don’t reflect actual engagement,” Wu informed BeInCrypto.
Finally, Wu recommended researching the background of the project’s team members to uncover any history of fraudulent activity or involvement in questionable ventures. This would ensure that investors are well-informed before committing to any project.
4. Whale Movements
As BeInCrypto reported earlier, before the crash, a whale wallet reportedly associated with the MANTRA team deposited 3.9 million OM tokens into the OKX exchange. Experts highlighted that this wasn’t an isolated incident.
“Large OM transfers (43.6 million tokens, ~$227 million) to exchanges days prior were a major warning of potential sell-offs,” Forest Bai conveyed to BeInCrypto.
Ming Wu also explained that investors should pay close attention to such large transfers, which often act as warning signals. Moreover, analysts at CryptoQuant also outlined what investors should look out for.
“OM transfers into exchanges amounted to as much as $35 million in just an hour. This represented an alert sign as: Transfers into exchanges are below $8 million in a typical hour (excluding transfers into Binance, which are typically large given the size of the exchange). Transfers into exchanges represented more than a third of the total OM transferred, which indicates a high transfer volume into exchanges,” CryptoQuant informed BeInCrypto.
Strategies to Protect Yourself
CryptoQuant stated that investors need to monitor the flows of any token into exchanges, as it could indicate increasing price volatility in the near future.
Meanwhile, Risk Control Adviser Eric He outlined four strategies to stay up-to-date when it comes to large transfers.
Chain Sleuthing: Tools like Arkham and Nansen allow investors to track large transfers and monitor wallet activity.
Set Alerts: Platforms like Etherscan and Glassnode notify investors of unusual market movements.
Track Exchange Flows: Users need to track large flows into centralized exchanges.
Check Lockups: Dune Analytics helps investors determine if team tokens are being released earlier than expected.
He also recommended focusing on the market structure.
“OM’s crash proved market depth is non-negotiable: Kaiko data showed 1% order book depth collapsed 74% before the fall. Always check liquidity metrics on platforms like Kaiko; if 1% depth is below $500,000, that’s a red flag,” Eric revealed to BeInCrypto.
Additionally, Phil Fogel underlined the importance of monitoring platforms like X (formerly Twitter) for any rumors or discussions about possible dumps. He stressed the need to analyze liquidity to assess whether a token can handle sell pressure without causing a significant price drop.
Interestingly, experts were slightly divided on how CEXs contributed to OM’s crash. Forest Bai claimed that CEX liquidations during low-liquidity hours worsened the crash by triggering cascading sell-offs. Eric He corroborated this sentiment.
“CEX liquidations played a major role in the OM crash, acting as an accelerant. With thin liquidity—1% depth falling from $600,000 to $147,000—forced closures triggered cascading liquidations. Over $74.7 million was wiped in 24 hours,” he mentioned.
“Analyzing the open interest in the OM derivatives market reveals that it was less than 0.1% of OM’s market capitalization. However, what’s particularly interesting is that during the market collapse, open interest in OM derivatives actually increased by 90%,” Wu expressed to BeInCrypto.
According to the executive, this challenges the idea that liquidations or forced closures caused the price drop. Instead, it indicates that traders and investors increased their short positions as the price fell.
Strategies to Protect Yourself
While the involvement of CEXs remains debatable, the experts did address the key point of investor protection.
“Investors can limit leverage to avoid forced liquidations, choose platforms with transparent risk policies, monitor open interest for liquidation risks, and hold tokens in self-custody wallets to reduce CEX exposure,” Forest Bai recommended.
Eric He also advised that investors should mitigate risks by adjusting leverage dynamically based on volatility. If tools like ATR or Bollinger Bands signal turbulence, exposure should be reduced.
The MANTRA (OM) collapse is a powerful reminder of the importance of due diligence and risk management in cryptocurrency investments. Investors can minimize the risk of falling into similar traps by carefully assessing tokenomics, monitoring on-chain data, and diversifying investments.
With expert insights, these strategies will help guide investors toward smarter, more secure decisions in the crypto market.
Solayer (LAYER) is under intense pressure after a sudden 45% crash wiped out weeks of bullish momentum. Once up 460% since February, the token trades below $1.70 as traders scramble to understand what triggered the collapse.
The altcoin lost nearly $350 million in market cap in this crash. With volatility rising and the long/short ratio now at 1.45, the market appears divided between those expecting a rebound and those bracing for further downside.
Solayer Loses Nearly $350 Million Market Cap – What’s Behind the Drop?
LAYER has plunged roughly 35% in just 24 hours, falling from nearly $3.10 to $1.90, leaving the community scrambling for answers. This sharp drop comes despite Solayer’s strong fundamentals—it’s the first hardware-accelerated blockchain designed to offload operations onto programmable chips, aiming for over 1 million TPS and 100 Gbps bandwidth.
The project also offers real-world utility through its Solayer Emerald Card, which allows users to spend USDC seamlessly via Visa, with support for Apple Pay and Google Pay.
From February 18 to May 5, LAYER surged 460%, making it one of the best-performing altcoins of the year—until the sudden crash disrupted momentum.
Right now, confusion reigns. Some blame market makers for triggering a cascade of liquidations, others accuse the founders of shady practices, while a few point to the daily 110,600 LAYER token unlocks.
However, those daily unlocks account for just $219,000 in value—hardly enough to justify a $250 million+ loss in market cap. What’s more concerning is the upcoming major unlock on May 11, when 26.5 million LAYER (worth about $51 million) will be released.
If market sentiment doesn’t recover before then, this influx of supply could intensify selling pressure and potentially push the price even lower.
LAYER Crash Deepens: $3.2 Million in Long Liquidations Fuel Panic
LAYER’s long/short ratio sat at 0.78 over the past 24 hours, with 56.14% of traders positioned short—reflecting rising bearish sentiment.
Around $3.2 million in long liquidations were triggered, more than double the $1.5 million in short liquidations. This forced selling likely accelerated the drop from $3.10 to $1.90, as liquidation cascades compounded the pressure.
Aggregated Long/Short Accounts Ratio AVG. Source: Coinalyze.
With the upcoming May 11 token unlock, the unwind of leveraged positions became a key driver of the crash.
While the long/short ratio has since flipped to 1.45—indicating that more traders are now positioning for a rebound—the lack of order book depth remains a concern. In such environments, price volatility can remain elevated regardless of whether sentiment shifts back to bullish.
Longs Pile In as LAYER Struggles Below $1.90
LAYER’s outlook remains highly uncertain as its price struggles to hold above $1.90 following a steep decline.
Traders and investors are still seeking clarity on the cause of the crash, while sentiment remains fragile ahead of the May 11 token unlock.
In this context, the current long/short ratio of 1.45 reveals an important shift—more traders are now betting on a rebound, with 59.2% of positions long versus 40.8% short.
This rising long bias may suggest that some believe the worst is over, especially after an aggressive selloff.
However, it also introduces new risk: if LAYER fails to recover and drops further, these newly opened long positions could be liquidated just like before—potentially setting off another wave of forced selling.
Bitmine now holds more than $2.9 billion in Ethereum (ETH), positioning itself as the world’s largest institutional ETH treasury.
The company reached this milestone after accumulating 833,137 ETH tokens. With this rapid acquisition, Bitmine signals its intent to lead in institutional Ethereum holdings.
According to its official disclosure, Bitmine aims to control up to 5% of ETH’s total supply. The firm relies on both aggressive accumulation and strategic partnerships for liquidity and custody to advance its position. This approach currently places Bitmine ahead of public company peers by industry data, though future rankings could change as new reporting emerges.
“BitMine moved with lightning speed in its pursuit of the ‘alchemy of 5%’ of ETH growing our ETH holdings to over 833,000 from zero 35 days ago. We have separated ourselves among crypto treasury peers by both the velocity of raising crypto NAV per share and by the high liquidity of our stock.”
Bitmine’s statement also outlines its intent to maximize staking yields and long-term ETH growth, in coordination with institutional partners to reinforce its market dominance.
Bitmine’s visible activity indeed sets a new bar for corporate crypto asset management. However, government-verified regulatory filings for these ETH reserves have not appeared in major databases.
