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

7 Months After the Collapse of Huiwang, Southeast Asia's Escrow Platforms Undergo a Major Reshuffle

Following the collapse of Huione Pay—dubbed the "Alipay of Southeast Asia"—seven months ago, the region's underground financial guarantee platform sector is undergoing a significant reshuffle. This power vacuum has been swiftly filled by emerging platforms such as XinBi, Tiger/Navigator, JinBei (renamed JinBo), Dali/Tiancheng, and FullyLight. These platforms, operating largely via Telegram and offering services like escrow for illicit transactions, have absorbed the vast user base and markets left behind by Huione. While positioning themselves as "trust intermediaries," their primary clientele consists of networks involved in online scams, money laundering, illegal gambling, and even human trafficking. For instance, the Tiger/Navigator platform explicitly provides "escrow" services for kidnapping-for-ransom operations ("强押车交易"). Data underscores the immense scale: Huione alone processed over $103 billion in cryptocurrency payments and facilitated over $31 billion through its escrow market before its downfall, linking it to Cambodia's notorious Prince Group. Since its collapse, competitors have seen explosive growth. For example, the XinBi platform has accumulated over $1.6 billion in total USDT revenue, while platforms like NewPay, OkPay (under Dali), and FullyLight Wallet collectively processed over $4.8 billion in USDT in a single year. This ecosystem thrives in regions like Cambodia and Myanmar, where regulatory gaps allow these platforms to act as critical financial infrastructure for sprawling cybercrime industries, from scam compounds to online casinos. The article concludes that the moniker "Southeast Asian Alipay" is a misnomer, obscuring the platforms' fundamental role in enabling serious criminal enterprises rather than representing legitimate financial innovation.

Odaily星球日报9m ago

7 Months After the Collapse of Huiwang, Southeast Asia's Escrow Platforms Undergo a Major Reshuffle

Odaily星球日报9m ago

The Changing Landscape: What Are Crypto VCs Experiencing?

Title: The Shifting Landscape of Crypto Venture Capital The era of dedicated crypto venture capital funds is undergoing a significant transformation. Once essential for navigating the sector's complexity and high risk, these specialized funds are now facing an identity crisis as the market matures. This shift mirrors historical patterns in other specialized investment classes like cleantech and SPACs, where initial information advantages dissipate as technologies become mainstream and integrated into existing industry frameworks. The article argues that crypto is reaching a critical inflection point, transitioning from a "building phase" to an "integration phase." Major players like Stripe, BlackRock, and Visa now engage with crypto not for its novel mechanics but as a foundational financial infrastructure. Their needs—regulatory compliance, banking partnerships, distribution channels—align with traditional fintech, a domain easily understood by large, generalist funds like Sequoia and Founders Fund. This evolution creates a "barbell effect" within the VC landscape. On one end are massive, diversified platforms that can incorporate crypto as one vertical among many. On the other are small, nimble funds focused on niche, experimental projects. The middle ground—medium-sized dedicated crypto funds—is being squeezed out. Their typical fund size makes it impossible to generate sufficient returns solely from early-stage crypto bets, yet they cannot compete with giants for later-stage deals. Consequently, leading crypto-native firms like Paradigm and Framework Ventures are expanding into AI, robotics, and other sectors, driven partly by LP pressure for better returns amid a broader VC DPI crisis. Others, like Dragonfly and a16z, have narrowed their crypto focus predominantly to financial infrastructure like stablecoins, reframing the sector's core narrative. For crypto entrepreneurs, this consolidation presents challenges. While generalist funds offer larger checks and broader resources, crypto projects now compete fiercely with AI for attention and capital within these firms. Furthermore, the long-term, non-commercial foundational work that built the ecosystem—funded by dedicated crypto VCs—is less likely to attract generalist capital focused on direct returns. The conclusion is that "crypto investor" as a standalone category is becoming obsolete, akin to "internet investor." Crypto is becoming a baseline infrastructure layer. The future will see a barbell structure: large-scale growth financing handled by generalist funds, while pioneering, speculative projects are funded by small, specialized vehicles. The dedicated crypto funds of the 2017-2021 boom, which incubated core infrastructure, are giving way to this new, bifurcated reality.

Foresight News27m ago

The Changing Landscape: What Are Crypto VCs Experiencing?

Foresight News27m ago

As Consensus Accelerates, What Are Young Investors Betting On?

Title: As Consensus Forms Faster, What Are Young Investors Betting On? In the rapid evolution of tech investment, a new generation of young investors is navigating a landscape where AI, robotics, commercial aerospace, and quantum computing are advancing simultaneously. Traditional investment logic based on financial models is giving way to a need for deep technical understanding and the ability to act before industry consensus forms. An analysis of trends from the "WAIC FUTURE TECH" list of young investment leaders reveals key shifts in focus. The first major trend is the movement of AI from the digital screen into the physical world. Investment is shifting from large language models and chatbots towards embodied AI, robotics, AI hardware, and edge computing. While demonstrations generate excitement, the real challenge lies in achieving scalable, reliable, and cost-effective delivery in complex real-world environments like factories and logistics. Success depends not just on algorithms but on the integration of sensors, actuators, and control systems. Second, the competitive focus for large models is moving beyond raw capability toward building an "intelligence flywheel." The goal is to create self-reinforcing systems where user interaction generates data, improving the model, which in turn enhances the user experience and attracts more engagement. Companies that successfully embed AI into workflows to create these closed-loop systems can build lasting value that isn't easily erased by the next model upgrade. Third, facing a potential bottleneck in high-quality human-generated data, investors are looking at new underlying technologies. Reinforcement learning and self-play, as demonstrated by AlphaGo Zero, offer paths for AI to generate its own experience. Scientific foundation models, which aim to build general AI capabilities for fields like life sciences and materials discovery, represent a non-consensus direction that could unlock new frontiers of knowledge and data. Finally, in deep-tech areas like quantum computing, commercial aerospace, and space-based infrastructure, patient capital is essential. These fields have long, uncertain development and validation cycles involving complex engineering, supply chains, and regulations. Investment here requires a long-term view, focusing on foundational team capabilities and the eventual emergence of market demand, even if commercial returns are distant. Collectively, these trends illustrate how young investors are adapting to a new era. They are learning to make earlier, technically-informed judgments, balance hype with real-world viability, and provide the patient capital needed to build the deep-tech foundations of the future.

marsbit55m ago

As Consensus Accelerates, What Are Young Investors Betting On?

marsbit55m ago

Trading

Spot

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.

2.8k 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