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

Former CFTC Chairman, Circle President Tarbert: Preaching Long-Termism While Cashing Out $30 Million Himself

Former CFTC Chairman and Circle President Heath Tarbert has consistently advocated for a long-term vision in public, urging patience from investors as Circle’s stock price has fallen significantly from its peak. However, it has been revealed that since Circle’s IPO, Tarbert has continuously sold his CRCL shares through pre-arranged trading plans, cashing out approximately $30 million, without making any public market purchases. This contrast between his public messaging and personal actions has drawn criticism. Tarbert joined Circle in July 2023 as Chief Legal Officer, leveraging his regulatory experience to help guide the company through its IPO and expansion. Despite promoting stablecoins as long-term infrastructure, he established a 10b5-1 trading plan just before Circle went public, leading to substantial stock sales over the following year. In March 2026, he initiated another plan to sell more shares. His career trajectory highlights a pattern of moving between high-level regulatory roles and influential positions in the financial sector. After resigning as CFTC Chairman in early 2021, he joined Citadel Securities as Chief Legal Officer just 27 days later, during a period of intense regulatory scrutiny for the firm. He later joined Circle, aiding its efforts to navigate regulatory challenges for its public listing. While Tarbert's expertise in policy and compliance is valuable to companies like Circle, his actions—advocating long-term confidence while personally divesting—raise questions about the alignment between his public statements and his private financial decisions, leaving investors who followed his advice to bear the market risks.

marsbit17m ago

Former CFTC Chairman, Circle President Tarbert: Preaching Long-Termism While Cashing Out $30 Million Himself

marsbit17m ago

Gate Research Institute: The 'Wall Street-ization' Wave of Crypto Financial Products – Competition or Integration?

The article titled "Gate Research Institute: Are Crypto Financial Products Sparking a 'Wall Street' Wave—Competition or Convergence?" explores the evolving relationship between the crypto ecosystem and traditional finance (TradFi). The piece begins by reflecting on Bitcoin's original 2009 vision of decentralization, disintermediation, and moving away from banks. It then contrasts this with the 2024 landscape, where key crypto assets like Bitcoin are increasingly held through Wall Street products like ETFs issued by giants like BlackRock. The article questions whether this signifies that TradFi is systematically taking over the rights to issue, price, custody, and distribute crypto financial assets. The core argument is that this is not a zero-sum takeover but rather a bidirectional convergence where each side addresses the other's weaknesses. Crypto offers 24/7 global markets, programmable settlement, and open access but lacks compliant channels, institutional-grade custody, deep fiat liquidity, and mainstream distribution. TradFi possesses these but is constrained by legacy systems, limited operating hours, and slow settlement. Two primary convergence paths are highlighted: * **Path A (CEX to TradFi):** Exemplified by Gate, which has progressed from offering tokenized stocks and CFDs to providing direct, real stock trading (US, Hong Kong, South Korea) within its platform, using USDT. * **Path B (TradFi to Crypto):** Exemplified by Robinhood, which has integrated crypto trading, acquired exchanges like Bitstamp, and is moving traditional assets like stocks onto the blockchain via tokenization and its own Layer 2. Both paths are ultimately competing to become the next-generation, unified financial account—a "super account" where users can seamlessly trade cryptocurrencies, stocks, ETFs, RWA (Real World Assets), and tokenized treasury products in one interface. The growth of RWA and tokenized treasuries (e.g., BlackRock's BUIDL) is presented as the asset-layer fusion, providing stable, yield-bearing assets on-chain and acting as a bridge between the two worlds. In conclusion, the "Wall Street-ization" of crypto is framed as a mutual transformation. Decentralized ideals persist in the protocol layer, while at the application layer, a more efficient, global, and accessible unified capital market is emerging from this convergence. The future competition lies not between crypto exchanges and stockbrokers, but between platforms vying to offer the most comprehensive asset coverage, liquidity, and user experience within a single account.

marsbit21m ago

Gate Research Institute: The 'Wall Street-ization' Wave of Crypto Financial Products – Competition or Integration?

marsbit21m ago

Claude's Major New Feature: Screen Recording + Voice, Distilling Your Skills into AI Tasks in One Click

Claude has introduced a major new feature called "Record a Skill," available for Pro, Max, and Team users. This function, found in the Claude desktop app's CoWork menu, allows users to create reusable AI skills simply by recording their screen and providing voice narration while performing a task. Claude then automatically analyzes the recording and generates a functional Skill. A hands-on test confirmed the feature works seamlessly. Users start recording via the Skills manager, perform their workflow while verbally explaining the steps and logic, and avoid including sensitive information. After recording, Claude processes the content and creates the Skill, which can be saved and later invoked with a slash command (/). This eliminates the need for manual adjustments or writing complex instruction files. The innovation goes beyond mere efficiency. Previously, creating a Skill required writing a detailed SKILL.md file in Markdown—a significant barrier for non-technical users. "Record a Skill" bypasses this by directly capturing both actions and the implicit reasoning shared in the narration. This lowers the barrier to knowledge transfer and automation, addressing a core challenge in corporate knowledge management: the difficulty of getting experts to write and maintain documentation. However, the feature also highlights a shift in the nature of work. A case study from March 2026 showed a freelancer whose five-year client relationship was effectively replaced by a hand-coded Claude Skill automating their content workflow. With the even lower barrier of screen recording, the ability to distill personal expertise into automatable skills accelerates this trend. The "moat" for work is moving from simply knowing how to do a task to mastering tasks that are difficult or impossible to automate.

marsbit25m ago

Claude's Major New Feature: Screen Recording + Voice, Distilling Your Skills into AI Tasks in One Click

marsbit25m ago

Feeding AI "Noise" Can Also Boost Scores, This Work Enables Positive Transfer with Noise

Feeding "Noise" to AI Can Improve Performance: A Method Enables Positive Transfer from Noise This work, Semi-Supervised Noise Adaptation (SSNA), introduces a Noise Adaptation Framework (NAF) that challenges traditional transfer learning. Instead of requiring a labeled source domain of real data (e.g., images, text), NAF uses randomly generated Gaussian noise as the source. For a target task with C classes, it constructs C noise clusters by sampling from Gaussian distributions. Although this synthetic noise contains no semantic meaning, NAF trains it to form a discriminative class structure in a shared representation space—clustering same-class noise and separating different classes. The key is aligning this learned structure from the noise domain to the real, sparsely labeled target domain. A small number of target labels are still essential to establish the correspondence between noise clusters and actual classes. The training objective combines: 1) supervised loss on the few labeled target samples, 2) classification loss for the noise to build its structure, and 3) a distribution alignment loss (using Negative Domain Similarity) to minimize the gap between the noise and target domains in the shared space. Experiments show significant gains in few-label settings. With just 4 labels per class, NAF with a ResNet-18 backbone improves accuracy over a standard supervised baseline (ERM) by +12.35% on CIFAR-10, +7.61% on CIFAR-100, +4.38% on DTD-47, and +2.74% on Caltech-101. It also benefits fine-grained datasets and scales to ImageNet-1K (with 100 labels/class) and text classification (AG News). NAF can be integrated into existing semi-supervised methods like FixMatch for further gains. Ablation studies confirm the transferred benefit comes from the discriminative structure of the noise, not randomness itself. Collapsing all noise into a single point causes negative transfer, while increasing separation between noise cluster centers improves performance. The amount of noise per class is less critical once a basic structure forms. In conclusion, this work demonstrates that for positive transfer, the semantic content of source data may not be necessary. What can be effectively transferred is the *organizational structure* of categories within a representation space. This offers a promising alternative for scenarios where real source data is unavailable due to privacy, copyright, or procurement constraints.

marsbit27m ago

Feeding AI "Noise" Can Also Boost Scores, This Work Enables Positive Transfer with Noise

marsbit27m 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