1inch Team Accused of Dumping, On-Chain Data Reveals Sophisticated Trading Strategies of Large Positions

marsbitPublished on 2026-01-29Last updated on 2026-01-29

Abstract

Recent on-chain data from ARKHAM indicated that three wallets labeled as "1inch Team" sold 36.36 million 1INCH tokens, worth $5.04 million, causing the token's price to drop by 16.7% to around $0.1155. The tokens were initially acquired in late 2024 at approximately $0.42 each, meaning the sale resulted in a loss of over $10 million for the seller. This event sparked criticism and raised questions about whether the 1inch team was intentionally dumping tokens. However, the team’s historical trading behavior shows a pattern of strategic accumulation during market lows and gradual profit-taking during highs—not large-scale selling at a loss. For instance, earlier in the year, the team accumulated 1INCH at around $0.20 and sold portions at higher prices, realizing significant profits on 1INCH, ETH, and BTC positions. 1inch officially denied involvement, clarifying that the wallets in question were not controlled by the team or its multisig treasury and that the sell-off was likely executed by a third-party holder. The team emphasized that it does not influence independent token holders' decisions. Despite the clarification, the sell-off exacerbated the token’s already weak market performance. 1INCH has been in a prolonged downtrend since its all-time high of $6, now trading near $0.11. The incident highlights how on-chain labels can be misleading and how low liquidity magnifies the impact of large sales—often harming retail investors the most.

Author | Ethan(@ethanzhang_web3)

Large sales marked as "1inch team" have once again sparked criticism.

Recently, the on-chain data platform ARKHAM showed that three wallets marked as "1inch team" sold a total of 36.36 million 1INCH tokens, worth $5.04 million. According to OKX market data, affected by this, the price of 1INCH briefly fell by 16.7% to $0.1155, currently reported at $0.1164. A question quickly arose in the market: Is the project team really dumping the tokens themselves?

Looking at this sale alone, the outcome was not ideal. On-chain data shows that the above 1INCH tokens were mainly transferred to the relevant addresses in late November 2024. Based on the price at that time, the cost was approximately $0.42, corresponding to a total value of about $15.27 million. Before this sale, the price of 1INCH had already fallen to around $0.14. Combined with the slippage impact due to the large volume of the sale, the actual loss for this batch of positions may exceed $10 million.

Reference: 1inch Team's Previous Trading Style

Previously, the on-chain operations of the 1inch team investment fund during multiple market fluctuations were regarded by the market as the presence of a "professional trading team."

As early as February to April, the 1inch team investment fund had already begun accumulating 1INCH at low levels. At that time, market sentiment had not yet recovered, and 1INCH had been lingering around $0.2. During this phase, the team invested a total of approximately $6.648 million to buy 33.19 million 1INCH tokens, with an average entry price of about $0.2.

However, this round of buying did not cause significant price fluctuations. What really caught the market's attention was the concentrated buying in early July. From July 6 to 9, the 1inch team investment fund made another move, investing an additional $4.4 million in just a few days to buy 22.99 million 1INCH tokens. As buying continued, the price of 1INCH rose from around $0.18 to $0.206, a short-term increase of about 14%. During this period, the team transferred 3 million USDC to Binance and withdrew 1INCH in batches to their own addresses. The funds were not used all at once, possibly waiting for opportunities, and continued buying.

After July 10, the pace of operations noticeably accelerated. On the afternoon of July 10, the team bought another 4.12 million 1INCH tokens for about $880,000, while also transferring 2 million USDT to Binance to prepare ammunition for subsequent trades. On the evening of July 11, on-chain monitoring showed that the team likely bought another 11.81 million 1INCH tokens at a higher price range, around $0.28. By this point, the address's holdings had increased to 83.97 million 1INCH tokens, with a book value exceeding $23 million. On July 13, the team continued to withdraw 6.334 million 1INCH tokens from Binance.

Looking back to early February, the 1inch team investment fund had cumulatively invested about $13.64 million since the beginning of the year to buy 55.85 million 1INCH tokens, with a comprehensive cost of about $0.244. With the price of 1INCH rising to above $0.39 in mid-July, these positions had already generated paper profits of several million dollars.

It is worth noting that the team was not "only buying and not selling." On the evening of July 13, they began to realize profits on a small scale, selling about 904,000 1INCH tokens at $0.33, exchanging them for $298,000; and in earlier stages, they had already sold some 1INCH tokens in batches at around $0.28.

At the same time, the team also took profits on another important position: ETH, which was bought in February at an average price of $2,577, began to be sold in batches above $4,200, with the ETH position alone realizing profits of millions of dollars.

On August 11, according to on-chain analyst Yu Jin's monitoring, the 1inch team investment fund began to realize some of its earlier positions on-chain. Data showed that they sold 5,000 ETH at an average price of $4,215, exchanging them for 21.07 million USDC; simultaneously, they sold 6.45 million 1INCH tokens at an average price of $0.28, exchanging them for about $1.8 million USDC.

Based on the entry costs, the above ETH was bought by the 1inch team in February this year at an average price of about $2,577; the corresponding 1INCH was mainly accumulated in July, with a comprehensive cost of about $0.253. Based solely on the sold ETH and 1INCH positions, the 1inch team investment fund has realized paper profits of about $8.36 million.

Looking further back, the 1inch team's operational path on BTC is equally clear: "buying against the trend, selling with the trend." During February to March this year, they bought 160.8 WBTC at an average price of about $88,000 during a BTC correction, and completed the sale when BTC approached the $100,000 mark again in May, realizing a total profit of nearly $1 million.

Combining the clues of BTC, ETH, and 1INCH assets, the on-chain operations of the 1inch team investment fund resemble a well-rehearsed capital strategy: completing accumulation during market adjustments, continuously adding positions during the upward trend, and realizing profits in batches when prices enter high ranges.

But This Time, Was It Really Them Operating?

It should be pointed out that comparing this large sale near $0.14 with the past on-chain operations of the 1inch team investment fund reveals: if this sale was indeed directly led by the team, its execution method itself significantly deviates from its past trading logic. Whether in historical operations of BTC, ETH, or 1INCH, the team's more common practice was to realize profits in batches after the price trend was confirmed, rather than selling concentratedly in an obvious low-liquidity range.

For this reason, some market participants began to question: did this selling behavior marked as "1inch team" really come from the team or wallets directly controlled by them.

Subsequently, 1inch official also responded to the related controversy. In a statement, they clearly stated that this selling behavior did not occur in any wallet controlled by the 1inch team, entity, or treasury multi-signature, and the team cannot interfere with the asset allocation and trading decisions of third-party holders.

In other words, the association indicated by on-chain labels does not equate to actual control. Judging from the execution rhythm and price range, this sale is more likely to come from a third-party holder who is no longer under the project's control, rather than a shift in the 1inch team's own trading logic.

In a stage of inherently limited liquidity, a single large sale being quickly equated to "team dumping" is itself an overly compressed interpretation of information. It ignores the natural disconnect between address labels and actual control rights after long-term token circulation.

Returning to 1inch itself. The official statement emphasized that this market fluctuation did not change its core business and long-term direction. Since 2019, 1inch has accumulated a trading volume of nearly $800 billion, and even during market downturns, it can maintain a daily trading scale of hundreds of millions of dollars. The team also stated that it plans to review the token economic model this year to improve overall resilience during periods of low liquidity and downturns. In this context, the discussion around "whether the 1inch team dumped tokens" is more like a misinterpretation amplified by on-chain labels, liquidity environment, and emotional interpretation.

However, even if it is eventually proven to be a misinterpretation, this sale still constituted a secondary impact on the already weakening price of 1INCH. Since the last cycle high of $6, 1INCH has experienced a long-term unilateral decline and is now hovering near $0.11.

On such a trend, the market clearly no longer has enough buffer space to digest any sudden selling signals. This type of amplified selling event ultimately bears the brunt of emotional impact on the weakest end of risk tolerance—retail investors.

Trending Cryptos

Related Questions

QWhat was the recent event that sparked criticism towards the 1inch team, according to the article?

AThree wallets labeled as '1inch team' sold 36.36 million 1INCH tokens, worth $5.04 million, causing the token's price to drop by 16.7%.

QHow does the recent large sell-off at $0.14 contradict the 1inch team's historical trading strategy as described in the article?

AThe team's historical strategy was to accumulate during market adjustments, add positions during rallies, and take profits in batches at higher price ranges. The recent sell-off at a low liquidity price point of $0.14 deviates from this logic of selling after a confirmed uptrend.

QWhat was the official response from 1inch team regarding the sell-off incident?

AThe 1inch team stated that the selling did not occur from any wallet controlled by the 1inch team, entity, or treasury multisig, and that they cannot interfere with the asset allocation and trading decisions of third-party holders.

QWhat key point does the article make about the relationship between on-chain labels and actual control of wallets?

AThe article emphasizes that an on-chain label indicating an association does not equate to actual control. The sell-off was likely from a third-party holder, not the team itself.

QWhat is the long-term price trend for the 1INCH token mentioned in the article?

AThe 1INCH token has been in a long-term downtrend since its previous cycle high of $6 and was trading around $0.11 at the time of the article.

Related Reads

The Hunter Becomes the Hunted: The Most Profitable MEV Bot Gets Hacked

A well-known and highly profitable Ethereum MEV Bot, Jaredfromsubway.eth, suffered a sophisticated on-chain attack this Saturday, losing over $7.5 million. Analysis by Blockaid and others reveals this was not a conventional phishing or smart contract exploit, but a targeted "counter-MEV honeypot attack." The attacker meticulously laid a trap over several weeks, deploying 66 fake token contracts and liquidity pools disguised as major assets like WETH and USDC. These pools created the illusion of arbitrage opportunities. The MEV Bot's automated system detected these signals, executed trades, and in the process, granted approval permissions to attacker-controlled contracts. These approvals were not revoked, creating a persistent vulnerability. The attacker then exploited this in a single transaction, draining the bot's ETH, USDC, and USDT holdings. Jaredfromsubway.eth is notorious as one of Ethereum's most active and profitable MEV Bots, primarily known for executing "sandwich attacks" to profit from transaction slippage. Estimates suggest it has earned tens of millions in MEV revenue. The incident highlights escalating crypto security threats, demonstrating that even top-tier automated "predators" are vulnerable to novel, logic-based attacks designed to exploit their own operational rules. Following the hack, an unverified X account impersonating Jaredfromsubway.eth emerged, falsely offering a bounty for the return of funds, prompting developer warnings for users to stay vigilant.

marsbit29m ago

The Hunter Becomes the Hunted: The Most Profitable MEV Bot Gets Hacked

marsbit29m ago

The Reality of Payments in Latin America Is Not What You Think

The payment landscape in Latin America is undergoing a fundamental shift, driven by on-the-ground realities that challenge common perceptions. Based on over 500 hours of field research across the region, key insights emerge. Firstly, QR code payments, like Brazil's Pix, are becoming the dominant payment method in most emerging markets, overtaking cards. However, these domestic instant payment systems lack international interoperability, creating a significant gap for cross-border users. Secondly, the narrative around crypto cards is often misunderstood; their primary volume comes from high-net-worth professionals using them for salary conversions (e.g., USDT to local currency via Pix), not retail micro-payments. Competition in payments is shifting from customer acquisition to controlling the settlement layer, leading fintechs to acquire banking licenses for efficiency. Thirdly, treating "Latin America" as a single market is a mistake. Countries like Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico have distinct economic realities, user segments, and regulatory approaches. Brazil alone has at least five distinct user segments with different financial flows. Overlooked markets like Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador (the "forgotten five") offer high remittance volumes with lower competitive density. Finally, regulation in Latin America is often ahead of the US, with clearer frameworks for digital assets and a pragmatic approach from regulators focused on safety rather than obstruction. The margin on stablecoin forex is rapidly compressing toward zero, meaning future winners will be those building value-added services on top of the infrastructure, not just the cheapest exchange.

marsbit45m ago

The Reality of Payments in Latin America Is Not What You Think

marsbit45m ago

Making Music in a Bear Market: The Survival Experiment of a Bitcoin Band

"Orange Pill Jam: A Bitcoin Band's Survival in the Bear Market" Orange Pill Jam is a musical group exploring themes of financial sovereignty and privacy, born from the Bitcoin community. Formed after singer Mermaid performed her song "Dollar Apocalypse" at a 2022 conference, the band creates music intended for both Bitcoin enthusiasts and general audiences. Their creative process involves Mermaid writing lyrics and melodies, which producer/multi-instrumentalist Michi then shapes with a precise, rhythm-focused approach, often demanding numerous retakes to achieve his unique standard of timing. Their songs, like "Cypherpunks' Manifesto" and "Fire of Freedom," tackle concepts of digital privacy, the pitfalls of "free" services, and personal sovereignty, influenced by experiences in places like El Salvador. Despite operating in a crypto bear market with a Copyleft model (offering music for free sharing/remixing and accepting optional Bitcoin donations), they face practical challenges. Their growth is slow on platforms like YouTube and Spotify, which aren't optimized for their niche content. The band also navigates the rise of AI-generated music. While acknowledging AI's efficiency for certain tasks, they believe human creativity occupies a unique space that algorithms cannot replicate—the ability to create new genres and capture intangible rhythmic feeling. For Orange Pill Jam, the core argument for both Bitcoin in a downturn and human artistry in the AI age lies in this irreplaceable, intentional, and imperfectly human creative process. Their project persists as an anti-algorithm experiment, valuing the unquantifiable impact of music over scalable metrics.

marsbit51m ago

Making Music in a Bear Market: The Survival Experiment of a Bitcoin Band

marsbit51m ago

Trading

Spot
Futures

Hot Articles

How to Buy 1INCH

Welcome to HTX.com! We've made purchasing 1inch (1INCH) simple and convenient. Follow our step-by-step guide to embark on your crypto journey.Step 1: Create Your HTX AccountUse your email or phone number to sign up for a free account on HTX. Experience a hassle-free registration journey and unlock all features.Get My AccountStep 2: Go to Buy Crypto and Choose Your Payment MethodCredit/Debit Card: Use your Visa or Mastercard to buy 1inch (1INCH) instantly.Balance: Use funds from your HTX account balance to trade seamlessly.Third Parties: We've added popular payment methods such as Google Pay and Apple Pay to enhance convenience.P2P: Trade directly with other users on HTX.Over-the-Counter (OTC): We offer tailor-made services and competitive exchange rates for traders.Step 3: Store Your 1inch (1INCH)After purchasing your 1inch (1INCH), store it in your HTX account. Alternatively, you can send it elsewhere via blockchain transfer or use it to trade other cryptocurrencies.Step 4: Trade 1inch (1INCH)Easily trade 1inch (1INCH) on HTX's spot market. Simply access your account, select your trading pair, execute your trades, and monitor in real-time. We offer a user-friendly experience for both beginners and seasoned traders.

2.5k Total ViewsPublished 2024.03.29Updated 2026.06.02

How to Buy 1INCH

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of 1INCH (1INCH) are presented below.

活动图片