After Losing $5.5 Billion in 15 Minutes, Why Did "Meme Coin" OM Experience a 4x Surge?

By: blockbeats|2025/04/14 07:15:03

In the early hours, the RWA sector project MANTRA (OM) experienced a rapid 90% drop, plummeting from $6 to $0.5, causing its market capitalization to shrink by over $5.5 billion.

After Losing .5 Billion in 15 Minutes, Why Did

Three hours later, the MANTRA team released a statement attributing the sharp decline to an irrational liquidation event unrelated to the project itself, affirming that it was not initiated by the team.

Subsequently, OM surged from around $0.5 to $1.2, experiencing a brief pump. According to Coinglass data, within just four hours, the OM contract saw liquidations totaling $58 million.

Prior to this crash, OM had gone through multiple violent upswing phases since November last year, earning the nickname "Strong Pump Shitcoin" from the community.

OTC Trading or Team Dump? The Turbulent Life of OM's Whale-Dominated Supply

Recently, the community and various data tracking tools reported that whale addresses of OM had been withdrawing and sending funds to exchanges, with rumors suggesting that several off-exchange trades at a 50% discount or higher had been completed. When large holders start dumping, off-exchange buyers also panic sell.

On March 25, according to TheDataNerd's monitoring, the investment firm Laser Digital's address of MANTRA deposited 1.7 million OM to Binance, worth $11.49 million. The wallet had accumulated a total of 27 million OM last year and still holds 6.756 million OM, valued at $45.67 million.

Yesterday, as per Arkham's tracking, the address 0xA8...A84f withdrew 776,000 OM from Polygon's StakedOM contract, approximately worth $5.84 million.

Additionally, as observed by Genç Trader, the wallet address 0x9a…1a28 transferred around $20 million worth of OM to OKX 23 hours ago. Looking at past records, this address had withdrawn about $40 million worth of OM from Binance just a month ago and was one of the whales that had previously pumped the coin's price.

The dumping of OM by several whales is believed to be the direct cause of this recent crash, but some in the community speculate that it may have been premeditated.

PUA Airdrop

Last November, MANTRA announced a change to its airdrop rules, shifting from the previous "3-month cliff period followed by initial liquidity distribution and 9-month linear unlock" to "shortening the cliff period to 1 month, followed by an 11-month linear unlock," triggering strong community dissatisfaction.

Initially, MANTRA used high-profile expectation management to spark user participation, claiming to distribute 50 million OM tokens and promising a 20% immediate unlock on listing, with the airdrop to be completed within a month.

However, in actual implementation, MANTRA successively amended the airdrop rules, first changing the "immediate unlock on listing" to "start of linear release after one month," further delaying it to "10% initial release, with the rest vesting over three years." Simultaneously, with several mechanism changes such as roadmap adjustments and token distribution structures, MANTRA effectively transformed community traffic into a long-term lock-up tool by continually extending the vesting period.

When user sentiment rebounded, the project team introduced a governance voting mechanism to shift responsibility under the guise of "community consensus." However, in practice, the voting rights were concentrated in the hands of the project team or affiliated parties, resulting in high controllability. Finally, some early participants were excluded from the airdrop list, with the project team freezing their stakes citing a "Sybil attack" without disclosing detailed justifications.

High Token Control

The reason OM has been continuously pumped over the past six months is due to its team's significant token control. According to KOL @nihaovand, it usually involves coordinating three waves of community buy-ins at different price ranges to collectively drive up the token price. At the same time, the project team arranges an off-chain exit path for holders. The funds obtained from these exits are then used to boost the coin's price, laying the groundwork for the next wave of off-chain capital influx.

Previously, there were multiple reports alleging that the MANTRA team held 90% of the OM token's supply. Crypto analyst Mosi once wrote an article analyzing how a project with only a $4 million TVL could have over a $10 billion FDV, with the answer being that the team controlled most of the OM circulating supply. The MANTRA team holds 792M OM in a single wallet (90% of the supply), with the team even being too lazy to spread this supply across multiple wallets.

What Is the Actual Circulating Supply of OM?

According to Mosi's analysis, the actual circulating supply of OM = 980 million OM (circulating supply) - 792 million OM (team-controlled portion) = 188 million OM

However, this number may not be accurate either. The team still controls a significant portion of OM, using these tokens to perform a rug pull on their own airdrop, further draining liquidity, and continuing to control the circulating supply. They deployed around 100 million OM for a rug pull on their own airdrop, so this portion of tokens also needs to be deducted from the actual circulating supply.

Ultimately, the actual circulating supply of OM may be only 88 million OM, and the lower actual circulating supply makes it easy to manipulate the price of OM and easily liquidate any short positions. Traders should be wary of shorting OM as the team holds a large portion of the circulating supply, allowing them to easily pump or dump the price.

Mosi believes that Tritaurian Capital may be involved behind OM—this company borrowed $1.5 million from @SOMA_finance (@jp_mullin888 is a co-founder of SOMA, while Tritaurian is owned by Jim Preissler, former CEO of JP Morgan at Trade.io)—as well as some funds and market makers from the Middle East. These operations further compress the actual circulating supply, making its calculation more challenging.

This may also explain why they are unwilling to release the airdrop and have decided to implement a lock-up period. If they did carry out the airdrop, the actual circulating supply would significantly increase, potentially leading to a sharp price drop.

This is not some complex financial engineering, but it seems to be a deliberate plan aimed at reducing the token's actual circulating supply and easily pumping or dumping the price of OM.

On March 16, 2026, in Dallas, Texas, USA, CanGu Company (New York Stock Exchange code: CANG, hereinafter referred to as "CanGu" or the "Company") today announced its unaudited financial performance for the fourth quarter and full year ended December 31, 2025. As a btc-42">bitcoin mining enterprise relying on a globally operated layout and dedicated to building an integrated energy and AI computing power platform, CanGu is actively advancing its business transformation and infrastructure development.

2025 Full Year and Fourth Quarter Financial and Operational Highlights

• Financial Performance:

Total revenue for the full year 2025 was $688.1 million, with $179.5 million in the fourth quarter.

Bitcoin mining business revenue for the full year was $675.5 million, with $172.4 million in the fourth quarter.

Full-year adjusted EBITDA was $24.5 million, while the fourth quarter was -$156.3 million.

• Mining Operations and Costs:

A total of 6,594.6 bitcoins were mined throughout the year, averaging 18.07 bitcoins per day; of which 1,718.3 bitcoins were mined in the fourth quarter, averaging 18.68 bitcoins per day.

The average mining cost for the full year (excluding miner depreciation) was $79,707 per bitcoin, and for the fourth quarter, it was $84,552;

The all-in sustaining costs were $97,272 and $106,251 per bitcoin, respectively.

As of the end of December 2025, the company has cumulatively produced 7,528.4 bitcoins since entering the bitcoin mining business.

• Strategic Progress:

The company has completed the termination of the American Depositary Receipt (ADR) program and transitioned to a direct listing on the NYSE to enhance information transparency and align with its strategic direction, with a long-term goal of expanding its investor base.

CEO Paul Yu stated: "2025 marked the company's first full year as a bitcoin mining enterprise, characterized by rapid execution and structural reshaping. We completed a comprehensive adjustment of our asset system and established a globally distributed mining network. Additionally, the company introduced a new management team, further strengthening our capabilities and competitive advantage in the digital asset and energy infrastructure space. The completion of the NYSE direct listing and USD pricing also signifies our transformation into a global AI infrastructure company."

"As we enter 2026, the company will continue to optimize its balance sheet structure and enhance operational efficiency and cost resilience through adjustments to the miner portfolio. At the same time, we are advancing our strategic transformation into an AI infrastructure provider. Leveraging EcoHash, we will utilize our capabilities in scalable computing power and energy networks to provide cost-effective AI inference solutions. The relevant site transformations and product development are progressing simultaneously, and the company is well-positioned to sustain its execution in the new phase."

The company's Chief Financial Officer, Michael Zhang, stated: "By 2025, the company is expected to achieve significant revenue growth through its scaled mining operations. Despite recording a net loss of $452.8 million from ongoing operations, mainly due to one-time transformation costs and market-driven fair value adjustments, the company, from a financial perspective, will reduce its leverage, optimize its Bitcoin reserve strategy and liquidity management, introduce new capital to strengthen its financial position, and seize investment opportunities in high-potential areas such as AI infrastructure while navigating market volatility."

Fourth Quarter 2025 Ongoing Operations Financial Performance

Revenue

The total revenue for the fourth quarter was $1.795 billion. Of this, the Bitcoin mining business contributed $1.724 billion in revenue, generating 1,718.3 Bitcoins during the quarter. Revenue from the international automobile trading business was $4.8 million.

Operating Costs and Expenses

The total operating costs and expenses for the fourth quarter amounted to $4.56 billion, primarily attributed to expenses related to the Bitcoin mining business, as well as impairment of mining machines and fair value losses on Bitcoin collateral receivables.

This includes:

· Cost of Revenue (excluding depreciation): $1.553 billion

· Cost of Revenue (depreciation): $38.1 million

· Operating Expenses: $9.9 million (including related-party expenses of $1.1 million)

· Mining Machine Impairment Loss: $81.4 million

· Fair Value Loss on Bitcoin Collateral Receivables: $171.4 million

Profit Situation

The operating loss for the fourth quarter was $276.6 million, a significant increase from a loss of $0.7 million in the same period of 2024, primarily due to the downward trend in Bitcoin prices.

The net loss from ongoing operations was $285 million, compared to a net profit of $2.4 million in the same period last year.

The adjusted EBITDA was -$156.3 million, compared to $2.4 million in the same period last year.

Full Year 2025 Ongoing Operations Financial Performance

Revenue

The total revenue for the full year was $6.881 billion. Of this, the revenue from the Bitcoin mining business was $6.755 billion, with a total output of 6,594.6 Bitcoins for the year. Revenue from the international automobile trading business was $9.8 million.

Operating Costs and Expenses

The total annual operating costs and expenses amount to $1.1 billion.

Specifically, they include:

· Revenue Cost (excluding depreciation): $543.3 million

· Revenue Cost (depreciation): $116.6 million

· Operating Expenses: $28.9 million (including related-party expenses of $1.1 million)

· Miner Impairment Loss: $338.3 million

· Bitcoin Collateral Receivable Fair Value Change Loss: $96.5 million

Profitability

The full-year operating loss is $437.1 million. The continuing operations net loss is $452.8 million, while in 2024, there was a net profit of $4.8 million.

The 2025 non-GAAP adjusted net profit is $24.5 million (compared to $5.7 million in 2024). This measure does not include share-based compensation expenses; refer to "Use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures" for details.

Financial Position

As of December 31, 2025, the company's key assets and liabilities are as follows:

· Cash and Cash Equivalents: $41.2 million

· Bitcoin Collateral Receivable (Non-current, related party): $663.0 million

· Miner Net Value: $248.7 million

· Long-Term Debt (related party): $557.6 million

In February 2026, the company sold 4,451 bitcoins and repaid a portion of related-party long-term debt to reduce financial leverage and optimize the asset-liability structure.

Stock Repurchase

As per the stock repurchase plan disclosed on March 13, 2025, as of December 31, 2025, the company had repurchased a total of 890,155 shares of Class A common stock for approximately $1.2 million.

The US AI Startup Is Loving China's Open Source Model

80% of US AI Startups Are Using Chinese Open Source Models

Three Weeks of the US-Iran War: Who's Making Money, Who's Paying the Bill?

Global Losing 10 Million Barrels of Oil Each Day, Russia Earns Over $800 Million in Just Over Two Weeks