The Tornado Cash victory against OFAC is a major milestone for the web3 and DeFi development in the United States and globally.
The use of crypto mixers by bad actors remains an existential threat to the wider crypto market.
United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas, Robert Pitman, ruled in favor of Tornado Cash, a popular crypto mixer, against the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). According to court documents dated April 28, the OFAC is now legally prohibited from reinstating the original sanctions.
In August 2022, OFAC added Tornado Cash to the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN) list. According to OFAC, Tornado Cash enabled bad actors, led by North Korea-backed Lazarus, to launder more the. $7 billion in crypto assets.
However, some Tornado Cash users, led by Joseph Van Loon, presented strong arguments that the Department of Treasury had overstepped its authority. On the top list, the Plaintiffs argued that Tornado Cash is not a person and immutable smart contracts are not property.
In addition to citing constitutional violations of free speech and financial privacy, Tornado Cash can seamlessly exist in the United States.
Bigger Picture of Tornado Cash Final Ruling
The final blow to the Department of Treasury by the Tornado Cash is a huge victory for the web3 developers in the United States and globally. The ruling was hailed by web3 leaders led by Paul Grewal, the Chief Legal Officer at Coinbase, among others.
Moreover, open source development of web3 protocols will take shape under the Donald Trump administration, especially amid the anticipated crypto legal clarity.
Meanwhile, TORN price gained around 1 percent following the announcement to trade about $7.38 at the time of this writing. The small-cap altcoin, with a fully diluted valuation of about $74 million and a 24 hour average trading volume of about $2.6 million, had rallied over 160 percent in the past year.
According to data from StakingRewards, Solana (SOL) has overtaken Ethereum (ETH) in staking market capitalization, reaching $53.15 billion compared to Ethereum’s $53.72 billion.
This milestone has sparked heated discussions across the social media platform X, raising the question: Is this a turning point for Solana, or merely a short-lived surge?
Solana Outpaces Ethereum As High Staking Yields Prove Appealing
Recent data reveals that 64.86% of Solana‘s total supply is currently staked, delivering an impressive annual percentage yield (APY) of 8.31%. In contrast, Ethereum has only 28.18% of its supply staked, with an APY of 2.98%.
Staking rewards for Solana and Ethereum. Source: StakingRewards
This disparity highlights Solana’s growing appeal for investors seeking passive income through staking. Staking market capitalization is calculated by multiplying the total number of staked tokens by their current price. With SOL priced at $138.91 as of this writing, Solana has officially surpassed Ethereum in this metric.
However, Solana’s high staking ratio has sparked some controversy. Critics, such as Dankrad Feist on X, argue that Solana’s lack of a slashing mechanism (or penalties for validator violations) undermines the economic security of its staking model. With its slashing mechanism, Ethereum offers greater security, despite its lower staking ratio.
“It’s very ironic to call it ‘staking’ when there is no slashing. What’s at stake? Solana has close to zero economic security at the moment,” Dankrad Feist shared.
Increased Whale Activity Signals Caution
Meanwhile, recent moves by “whales” (large investors) have further fueled interest in Solana. On April 20, 2025, a whale unstaked 37,803 SOL (worth $5.26 million). Similarly, Galaxy Digitalwithdrew 606,000 SOL from exchanges over four days (April 15–19, 2025), concluding with 462,000 SOL.
Additionally, on April 17, 2025, a newly created wallet withdrew approximately $5.15 million worth of SOL from the Binance exchange. In the same tone, Binance whales withdrew over 370,000 SOL tokens valued at $52.78 million.
While some whales withdrew their SOL holdings, other large holders accumulated. Janover, a US-listed company, increased its Solana holdings to 163,651.7 SOL (worth $21.2 million) and partnered with Kraken exchange for staking on April 16, 2025.
These actions signal diverging plays from institutional investors and whales, as the Solana price fluctuates around key levels.
SOL Price Analysis: Opportunities and Challenges
As of this writing, SOL was trading at $140.49, up 3.53% in the past 24 hours. Analysts highlight $129 as crucial support for the Solana price, with $144 presenting the key roadblock to overcome before Solana’s upside potential can be realized. Breaking above the aforementioned roadblock could propel SOL toward new highs.
The most important support for SOL is at $129. Source: Ali/X
Conversely, dropping below the $129 support level could trigger increased selling pressure. Nevertheless, SOL has shown a remarkable recovery, with a 14.34% increase over the past week.
Another factor to consider is the ongoing development of the Solana ecosystem. Key innovations include the QUIC data transfer protocol, the combination of Proof-of-History (PoH) and Proof-of-Stake (PoS), and the diversification of validator clients.
With these, Solana continues to enhance its performance and decentralization. Additionally, the launch of the Solang compiler, compatible with Ethereum’s Solidity, has attracted developers from the Ethereum ecosystem.
BeInCrypto also reported on Solana’s upcoming community conference, otherwise termed Solana Breakpoint. Key announcements from this event could provide further tailwinds for the SOL price.
Nevertheless, despite surpassing Ethereum in staking market capitalization, Solana faces significant challenges. Ethereum benefits from a more mature DeFi ecosystem, greater institutional trust, and enhanced security through its slashing mechanism.
To some, Ethereum’s lower staking ratio (28%) may be a deliberate strategy to reduce network pressure and ensure liquidity for DeFi applications.
In contrast, Solana’s high staking ratio (65%) could limit liquidity within its DeFi ecosystem. This raises the question of whether Solana can strike a balance between staking and the growth of its decentralized applications.
As Solana continues challenging Ethereum’s dominance, the crypto community remains divided. Is Solana’s rise a sustainable breakthrough, or just another wave of hype?
The crypto world was shaken as OM, the token of the MANTRA project, nosedived by over 90% in less than an hour, wiping out more than $6 billion in value. Crypto analysts Sjuul from AltCryptoGems and StarPlatinum have detailed the events revealing how red flags, team control, and behind-the-scenes deals contributed to what some call “LUNA 2.0.” Is it an inside job? Let’s unpack the details.
However, in an official statement, the firm clarified that the sell-off was not an insider job, and they are working to resolve the matter soon. MANTRA’s co-founder, John Patrick Mullin, also said that there is no need to panic and that they are investigating the matter.
MANTRA community – we want to assure you that MANTRA is fundamentally strong. Today’s activity was triggered by reckless liquidations, not anything to do with the project. One thing we want to be clear on: this was not our team. We are looking into it and will share more details…
— MANTRA | Tokenizing RWAs (@MANTRA_Chain) April 13, 2025
Sjuul’s Breakdown: Manipulation and OTC Deals Led to Collapse
According to Sjuul, the crash was triggered when a wallet linked to the MANTRA team suddenly deposited 3.9 million OM tokens onto OKX. This raised immediate concerns, as the team is known to control nearly 90% of the token’s total supply. With such control, any sell-off could crash the market, and that’s exactly what happened.
4/ So when that large token deposit hit OKX, people started to worry that a big sell-off was coming.
Sjuul highlighted that trust had already been broken in the OM community over the past year. The team allegedly manipulated the market using market makers, secretly altered tokenomics, and repeatedly delayed a promised community airdrop. These actions had already put the community on edge.
But the real shock came with rumors of OTC deals, mainly private sales, where tokens were reportedly offered at massive discounts, some up to 50% off. When the token’s price began to slide, even these investors rushed to exit, causing a chain reaction. Stop-losses were triggered, leveraged positions liquidated, and within an hour, the price plummeted 90%, burning countless investors.
StarPlatinum’s Analysis: Airdrop Scandal and Vanishing Act
Another crypto analyst StarPlatinum, echoed the alarm, calling it a disaster on the scale of LUNA. He pointed to the team’s controversial airdrop incident just a month ago, where over 50% of eligible wallets were suddenly blacklisted without explanation. This move alienated the community and created deep suspicion.
It all started when a wallet linked to MANTRA sent 3.9M $OM to OKX
He also highlighted the team’s quiet changes to tokenomics, founder inactivity, and rumors of price control through market makers. When the wallet transfer to OKX happened, it triggered widespread fear. As news of the OTC deals spread, panic selling began. In one hour, OM crashed from $7 to just $0.50.
What made things worse, according to StarPlatinum, was the OM Telegram group getting deleted right after the crash. The final message before deletion likened the event to “LUNA 2.0.” Since then, the team has gone silent, adding to the chaos.
Don’t Ignore Red Flags
Both analysts agreed on one thing that when a token is overly centralized, lacks transparency, and constantly shifts its rules, danger is never far behind. The OM crash serves as a brutal reminder to always research before investing.
The post Mantra Crypto Crash : Why OM Coin Price Crashed Heavily? appeared first on Coinpedia Fintech News
The crypto world was shaken as OM, the token of the MANTRA project, nosedived by over 90% in less than an hour, wiping out more than $6 billion in value. Crypto analysts Sjuul from AltCryptoGems and StarPlatinum have detailed the events revealing how red flags, team control, and behind-the-scenes deals contributed to what some call …
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.
