Mantra CEO tells OM holders to withdraw from OKX over ‘inaccurate’ migration plan

cointelegraphPublished on 2025-12-08Last updated on 2025-12-08

Abstract

Mantra CEO John Patrick Mullin has urged users to withdraw their OM tokens from the OKX exchange, accusing the platform of posting an "inaccurate" migration plan. Mullin claims OKX provided incorrect dates and details about the upcoming token migration from an Ethereum-based ERC-20 token to a native Mantra Chain token. He stated that OKX has not communicated with Mantra since April 13, when the OM token crashed over 90%, an event Mantra attributed to aggressive exchange leverage policies. Mullin advised users to avoid relying on OKX and complete the migration independently. The official migration is set to occur after January 15, contrary to OKX’s announced December timeline.

Tensions between blockchain platform Mantra and crypto exchange OKX are rising after Mantra accused the exchange of posting incorrect information about its token migration.

In a Monday X post, Mantra CEO John Patrick Mullin urged users of centralized cryptocurrency exchange (CEX) OKX to withdraw their Mantra (OM) tokens and cut their “dependency” on the platform.

“Users should consider withdrawing their OM tokens from OKX[...]. Avoid OKX Exchange Dependency: Complete migration without relying on potentially negligent or malicious intermediaries,” said Mullin.

His warning came in response to a Friday announcement from OKX about supporting the incoming OM token migration.

Source: JP Mullin

Related: BitMine buys $199M in Ether as smart money traders bet on ETH decline

According to Mullin, the OKX post contained multiple inaccuracies, including false migration and implementation dates.

OKX said the migration would occur between Dec. 22 and Dec. 25. Mantra’s governance proposal, by contrast, states that the migration will only take place after the Jan. 15 deprecation of the Ethereum-based ERC-20 OM token.

Mullin also said OKX’s post referenced “arbitrary dates throughout December 2025,” while Mantra has not yet announced an official implementation date.

He claimed OKX has not communicated with Mantra since “the events” of April 13, while Mantra has “helpfully [been] communicating with all other major exchanges regarding our migration.”

OKX’s OM Crypto Migration post. Source: okx.com

During the incoming migration, the OM token will migrate from an Ethereum-native ERC-20 token to a Mantra Chain-native token.

Cointelegraph has contacted OKX for comment but had not received a response by publication time.

Related: Prediction markets emerge as speculative ‘arbitrage arena’ for crypto traders

April crash still casting a shadow

On April 13, the Mantra’s OM token price fell by over 90% from around $6.30 to below $0.50.

OM/USD, 1-day chart. Source: Coingecko.com

On April 30, Mantra published a post-mortem report that blamed the aggressive trading policies and high leverage on cryptocurrency exchanges for the token crash.

“Liquidation cascades could happen to any project in the crypto industry,” Mullin said in the post, pointing to the role of “aggressive leverage positions” on exchanges as a broader threat to investor safety.

Mullin also urged exchanges to review their leverage policies while implementing a transparency dashboard for OM tokenomics, along with announcing the burning of 150 million staked OM tokens, permanently removing them from circulation in a bid to tighten the token’s supply.

Magazine: If the crypto bull run is ending... it’s time to buy a Ferrari — Crypto Kid

Related Reads

Why Is It Difficult for Retail Investors to Break Free from the Loss Cycle of High-Frequency Trading?

Why Retail Traders Struggle to Escape the High-Frequency Trading Loss Cycle Retail investors often fall into a trap of continuous losses in cryptocurrency markets due to high-frequency day trading, which is structurally skewed against them. The author, sharing from personal experience, explains that frequent trading without informational advantages—such as access to real order flow, liquidity maps, or market maker positions—inevitably leads to financial ruin over time. The key insight is that winning isn’t just about making profits but about preserving them. Most successful retail traders actually succeed by trading less: catching major market moves, then stepping back to avoid giving back gains. In contrast, constant trading—often driven by overconfidence and the false belief that discipline and risk management alone can beat the market—results in consistent losses. The article compares modern day trading to a "casino disguised as a café," where inexperienced traders, especially young ones, mistake gambling for a learnable skill. They rely on superficial tools like TradingView charts without understanding that institutional traders use advanced systems like Bloomberg terminals with exclusive data. Ultimately, the author advises retail traders to reduce trading frequency, avoid day trading, and focus on long-term strategies instead of chasing quick wins. The real tragedy is not losing money but believing that high-frequency trading is a sustainable strategy rather than a form of gambling.

比推Just now

Why Is It Difficult for Retail Investors to Break Free from the Loss Cycle of High-Frequency Trading?

比推Just now

Bull vs. Bear Debate: Is Stablecoin Leader CRCL Worth Buying? Why Can't High-Growth Earnings Drive the Stock Price?

"Circle (NYSE: CRCL), the issuer of USDC, has sparked intense debate in the crypto community following its Q3 2025 earnings report. Despite reporting strong growth—revenue up 66% YoY to $740 million and net income of $214 million, driven by a 108% increase in USDC circulation—its stock price fell significantly post-earnings and remains near its IPO price of $64. The core disagreement revolves around Circle’s business model and sustainability. Critics, including Jiang Zhuorer, argue that Circle operates like a bank, earning primarily through interest on reserve assets (mainly U.S. Treasuries), but is highly vulnerable to interest rate cuts. They highlight that ~60% of revenue is paid to distributors like Coinbase, leaving thin margins that could turn negative in a low-rate environment. They also warn of competition from traditional financial giants like JPMorgan and potential policy changes. Proponents, such as BTCdayu and qinbafrank, counter that Circle is building a long-term, network-driven infrastructure play. They compare it to Amazon or JD.com, arguing that current profit-sharing is a strategic cost to achieve scale, compliance advantage, and eventual market dominance in a winner-take-all industry. They believe USDC’s合规 (compliance) edge and institutional trust will drive adoption to multi-trillion dollars, outweighing interest rate risks. Short-term concerns include significant post-IPO lockup expirations adding selling pressure, and structural barriers like U.S. tax treatment of USDC as a property (not cash), hindering retail payment adoption. The debate encapsulates a clash between cyclical concerns (rates, costs, competition) and structural optimism (scale, compliance, network effects)."

Odaily星球日报1h ago

Bull vs. Bear Debate: Is Stablecoin Leader CRCL Worth Buying? Why Can't High-Growth Earnings Drive the Stock Price?

Odaily星球日报1h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片