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

Misjudged A-Shares: Resilience, Expectations, and Confidence

China's A-share market recently faced selling pressure, especially in tech sectors, initially triggered by a global tech sell-off that began in South Korea. However, the article argues this is a case of "mistaken injury" and highlights the market's underlying resilience. This resilience stems from three main pillars: **1) Tech Sector Fundamentals:** Unlike Korea's market dominated by a few memory chip stocks, China's tech sector is diversified across computing, communications, electronics, and semiconductors, supported by dual narratives of global AI supply chains and domestic substitution. Core areas like optical modules and fiber optics continue to show strong earnings growth. **2) "National Team" Support:** State-backed institutions and large corporations have made significant market purchases and announced buybacks, providing liquidity and signaling confidence. This is seen as a stabilizing policy signal, often associated with market bottoms. **3) Broader Market Pillars:** Other major sectors are showing endogenous recovery momentum. Consumer stocks benefit from stabilizing CPI and signs of sector recovery (e.g., liquor price hikes). Cyclical sectors like aluminum have high earnings, potential price increases due to tight supply, and low valuations. The financial sector offers stable dividends and low valuations. The conclusion is that the sell-off was driven by external contagion, not a collapse in fundamentals. With strong policy support and recovering momentum across key sectors, the A-share market possesses the toughness to regain stability.

marsbit32m ago

Misjudged A-Shares: Resilience, Expectations, and Confidence

marsbit32m ago

The Clarity Act's Journey Through Congress: The Thorny Path of Bipartisan Compromise in the U.S.

The U.S. Congress is struggling to advance the crypto market structure bill known as the Clarity Act, with bipartisan compromise proving difficult. Key hurdles include unresolved disputes over "yield" products and, more critically, the inclusion of strong ethics provisions for elected officials—a non-negotiable demand for many Democrats. While a compromise on yield was reached in May, securing only limited Democratic support in committee, the separate Senate Agriculture Committee version later passed with no Democratic votes due to the ethics impasse. As Republicans push for a full Senate vote in July, demands for ethics rules have expanded, and other contentious issues like developer protections and concerns from law enforcement and large banks further complicate negotiations. Despite consensus on the need for legislation, the path forward is unclear. Recent discussions between senators and White House officials aim to find acceptable ethics language. Some lawmakers question whether a compromise text can garner enough bipartisan support, with one Democrat stating the current proposal lacks the strong ethics provisions required for their vote. Potential short-term goals for the crypto community include symbolic Senate action before the August recess, a longer-term aim for passage by 2026, or establishing a detailed framework that addresses ethics and other compromises. The process remains arduous, relying on the traditional, vote-by-vote effort to build bipartisan support.

marsbit51m ago

The Clarity Act's Journey Through Congress: The Thorny Path of Bipartisan Compromise in the U.S.

marsbit51m ago

Are Kalshi and Polymarket Founders at Odds? This Business Rivalry Is More Brutal Than You Think

"The Rivalry Between Kalshi and Polymarket Founders Turns Bitter and Litigious" The intense feud between Tarek Mansour, CEO of Kalshi, and Shayne Coplan, founder of Polymarket, has escalated far beyond typical business competition into personal animosity and regulatory battles. Both lead billion-dollar prediction market platforms, but their approaches differ sharply. Kalshi positions itself as the compliant operator, securing U.S. regulatory approval before launching. In contrast, Polymarket initially operated offshore, allowing U.S. users to access its platform via VPN, which drew regulatory scrutiny. The conflict reached a peak in November 2024 when FBI agents raided Coplan's New York apartment. While Coplan publicly blamed political motives, his team privately suspected Kalshi was involved. According to sources, Kalshi's lawyers had previously reported Polymarket's operations to federal prosecutors, highlighting its accessibility to U.S. users despite a ban. This incident fueled mutual accusations and underhanded tactics, including social media smear campaigns and attempts to sabotage each other's major business deals. Their rivalry also played out in Washington, influencing regulatory debates. Kalshi actively lobbied against Polymarket's practices, framing them as illegal and unethical. Polymarket, after facing a CFTC fine and investigation, later acquired a licensed U.S. firm to launch a domestic app, regaining a foothold. Despite the hostility, both companies have seen massive growth, with combined trading volumes soaring. However, increased regulatory scrutiny, particularly around insider trading on Polymarket's platform, continues to pose challenges. The founders' deep-seated mutual disdain ensures their battle for market dominance remains as much a personal vendetta as a commercial one.

marsbit1h ago

Are Kalshi and Polymarket Founders at Odds? This Business Rivalry Is More Brutal Than You Think

marsbit1h 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