MOVE, OM Token Scandals Shake Crypto Liquidity
- MOVE and OM token crashes expose hidden deals.
- Market makers demand transparency in tokenomics.
- OTC trades distort supply and price discovery.
Recent incidents involving Movement Labs’ MOVE token and Mantra’s OM token have upset the crypto market-making world. Because of these high-visibility collapses, alleged involving private trading by team members, hidden unlocks of tokens and quiet selling on the secondary market, the industry is seriously reconsidering how it handles liquidity.
The spillover is leading market makers to rethink long-standing norms and informal understandings. Industry insiders are now demanding a shift away from handshake deals and toward clearer documentation, ethical alignment, and robust supply transparency.
Behind the Scandals: What Went Wrong?
The controversy began when Movement Labs’ MOVE token crashed after revelations surfaced that insiders colluded with a market maker to dump $38 million worth of tokens, all while outwardly promoting the project. Similarly, Mantra’s OM token plummeted by over 90% in a matter of hours, despite no official news or catalyst.
They have pointed out deeper problems with how cryptocurrencies are traded and exchanged. Unlike regular finance, where market makers ensure the market is structured and orderly, crypto market makers regularly act as brokers, investors and manage liquidity in the market. This merging of responsibilities has made it susceptible for third parties to affect token price, the amount of coin available and trust among investors.
Once thought to just provide market liquidity, market makers now appear to others as though they are engaged in insider trading. They play an active part in the initial round of allocations, advise on strategy and can influence how tokenomics are designed, leading to conflicts in the open markets.
The Secondary OTC Market: A Hidden Risk
The rise of the secondary over-the-counter (OTC) market is also fueling the situation. Because there are very few regulations, tokens that are locked up are still sold behind closed doors, usually long ahead of the planned vesting dates. These private interactions between early investors and hedge funds push up demand and cause doubt about the price players are willing to accept.
Min Jung, an analyst at Presto Research, notes that “tokens with erratic trading patterns like $MOVE and $OM are also the ones most actively circulated on the secondary OTC market.” As a result, the supply visible to retail traders or listed in whitepapers no longer matches the real circulating volume.
This opacity makes it nearly impossible for market makers to accurately assess token risk or build stable liquidity. The hidden supply dumps not only damage token value but also erode market confidence and integrity.
Rethinking Trust in a Changed Landscape
In response to these developments, many market-making firms are tightening deal structures and demanding greater disclosure. Hong Kong-based Metalpha stated that it now emphasizes strategic alignment and long-term protections in every deal, including safeguards against token dumping and wash trading.
“Projects no longer accept reputation at face value,” said Max Sun, head of Web3 at Metalpha. “Even established players have proven capable of shadow allocations. The era of presumptive trust is over.”
Behind the scenes, deals are under heavier scrutiny, and market makers are asking harder questions. Who controls the supply? When do tokens unlock? What side agreements might be in place?
The MOVE and OM scandals are more than isolated events; they are catalysts for reform in the crypto market-making space. As opaque practices come to light, the industry is being pushed toward higher standards of transparency, stronger governance, and a redefinition of what ethical liquidity provisioning looks like.
In an industry built on decentralization and trustless systems, the irony is clear: human trust still governs much of the infrastructure. And when that trust is broken, so too is the foundation of the markets themselves.
Highlighted Crypto News Today:
After Recent Spikes, How Far Away Is CORE from the $1 Mark?
Read More
Trump-Backed WLFI Faces $53M Unrealized Loss on Crypto Investments
Pi (PI) Price Prediction For May 19: Will Buyers Break Above $0.78 Resistance?
MOVE, OM Token Scandals Shake Crypto Liquidity
- MOVE and OM token crashes expose hidden deals.
- Market makers demand transparency in tokenomics.
- OTC trades distort supply and price discovery.
Recent incidents involving Movement Labs’ MOVE token and Mantra’s OM token have upset the crypto market-making world. Because of these high-visibility collapses, alleged involving private trading by team members, hidden unlocks of tokens and quiet selling on the secondary market, the industry is seriously reconsidering how it handles liquidity.
The spillover is leading market makers to rethink long-standing norms and informal understandings. Industry insiders are now demanding a shift away from handshake deals and toward clearer documentation, ethical alignment, and robust supply transparency.
Behind the Scandals: What Went Wrong?
The controversy began when Movement Labs’ MOVE token crashed after revelations surfaced that insiders colluded with a market maker to dump $38 million worth of tokens, all while outwardly promoting the project. Similarly, Mantra’s OM token plummeted by over 90% in a matter of hours, despite no official news or catalyst.
They have pointed out deeper problems with how cryptocurrencies are traded and exchanged. Unlike regular finance, where market makers ensure the market is structured and orderly, crypto market makers regularly act as brokers, investors and manage liquidity in the market. This merging of responsibilities has made it susceptible for third parties to affect token price, the amount of coin available and trust among investors.
Once thought to just provide market liquidity, market makers now appear to others as though they are engaged in insider trading. They play an active part in the initial round of allocations, advise on strategy and can influence how tokenomics are designed, leading to conflicts in the open markets.
The Secondary OTC Market: A Hidden Risk
The rise of the secondary over-the-counter (OTC) market is also fueling the situation. Because there are very few regulations, tokens that are locked up are still sold behind closed doors, usually long ahead of the planned vesting dates. These private interactions between early investors and hedge funds push up demand and cause doubt about the price players are willing to accept.
Min Jung, an analyst at Presto Research, notes that “tokens with erratic trading patterns like $MOVE and $OM are also the ones most actively circulated on the secondary OTC market.” As a result, the supply visible to retail traders or listed in whitepapers no longer matches the real circulating volume.
This opacity makes it nearly impossible for market makers to accurately assess token risk or build stable liquidity. The hidden supply dumps not only damage token value but also erode market confidence and integrity.
Rethinking Trust in a Changed Landscape
In response to these developments, many market-making firms are tightening deal structures and demanding greater disclosure. Hong Kong-based Metalpha stated that it now emphasizes strategic alignment and long-term protections in every deal, including safeguards against token dumping and wash trading.
“Projects no longer accept reputation at face value,” said Max Sun, head of Web3 at Metalpha. “Even established players have proven capable of shadow allocations. The era of presumptive trust is over.”
Behind the scenes, deals are under heavier scrutiny, and market makers are asking harder questions. Who controls the supply? When do tokens unlock? What side agreements might be in place?
The MOVE and OM scandals are more than isolated events; they are catalysts for reform in the crypto market-making space. As opaque practices come to light, the industry is being pushed toward higher standards of transparency, stronger governance, and a redefinition of what ethical liquidity provisioning looks like.
In an industry built on decentralization and trustless systems, the irony is clear: human trust still governs much of the infrastructure. And when that trust is broken, so too is the foundation of the markets themselves.
Highlighted Crypto News Today:
After Recent Spikes, How Far Away Is CORE from the $1 Mark?
Read More
Trump-Backed WLFI Faces $53M Unrealized Loss on Crypto Investments