咒語（OM）令牌崩潰：投資者錯過了什麼以及如何避免未來的損失

2024年，團隊在社區投票後改變了OM的象徵學。令牌從ERC20代幣遷移到本地L1藏硬幣

The collapse of the MANTRA (OM) token has left investors reeling, with many facing significant losses. As analysts comb through the causes of the collapse, many questions remain.

咒語（OM）代幣的崩潰使投資者陷入困境，許多人面臨著巨大的損失。作為分析師通過崩潰的原因梳理，仍然存在許多問題。

BeInCrypto consulted industry experts to identify five critical red flags behind MANTRA’s downfall and reveal strategies investors can adopt to steer clear of similar pitfalls in the future.

Beincrypto諮詢了行業專家，以確定Mantra倒台背後的五個關鍵危險信號，並揭示投資者可以採用的策略來避開未來的類似陷阱。

MANTRA (OM) Crash: What Investors Missed and How to Avoid Future Losses

咒語（OM）崩潰：投資者錯過了什麼以及如何避免未來的損失

On April 13, BeInCrypto broke the news of OM’s 90% crash. The collapse raised several concerns, with investors accusing the team of orchestrating a pump-and-dump scheme.

4月13日，Beincrypto打破了OM 90％崩潰的消息。崩潰引起了一些擔憂，投資者指責該團隊策劃了一項泵送計劃。

Experts believe that there were many early signs of trouble.

專家認為，有許多麻煩的跡象。

Yet, many overlooked the risks associated with the project.

然而，許多人忽略了與項目相關的風險。

1. MANTRA Red Flag: OM Tokenomics

1。咒語危險信號：om tokenomics

In 2024, the team changed OM’s tokenomics after a community vote in October. The token migrated from an ERC20 token to the native L1 staking coin for the MANTRA Chain.

2024年，團隊在10月的社區投票後改變了OM的令牌。令牌從ERC20代幣遷移到本機L1藏品硬幣的咒語鏈。

In addition, the project adopted an inflationary tokenomic model with an uncapped supply, replacing the previous hard cap. As part of this transition, the total token supply was also increased to 1.7 billion.

此外，該項目還採用了一個通貨膨脹的代幣模型，並取代了先前的硬上限。作為此過渡的一部分，代幣的總供應也增加到17億。

However, the move wasn’t without drawbacks. According to Jean Rausis, co-founder of SMARDEX, tokenomics was a point of concern in the OM collapse.

但是，此舉並非沒有缺點。根據Smardex聯合創始人Jean Rausis的說法，Tokenomics是OM崩潰的關注點。

“The project doubled its token supply to 1.77 billion in 2024 and shifted to an inflationary model, which diluted its original holders. Complex vesting favored insiders, while low circulating supply and massive FDV fueled hype and price manipulation,” Jean Rausis told BeInCrypto.

Jean Rausis告訴Beincrypto：“該項目在2024年將其代幣供應增加到17.7億，並轉移到了通貨膨脹模型，該模型稀釋了其原始持有人。複雜的歸屬有利的內部人士，而低循環的供應和大規模的FDV助長了炒作和價格操縱。”

Moreover, the team’s control over the OM supply also raised centralization concerns. Experts believe this was also a factor that could have led to the alleged price manipulation.

此外，團隊對OM供應的控制也引起了集中化的關注。專家認為，這也是一個可能導致涉嫌價格操縱的因素。

“About 90% of OM tokens were held by the team, indicating a high level of centralization that could potentially lead to manipulation. The team also maintained control over governance, which undermined the project’s decentralized nature,” said Phil Fogel, co-founder of Cork.

科克聯合創始人菲爾·福格爾（Phil Fogel）表示：“大約90％的OM令牌是由團隊持有的，這表明高水平的集中化可能會導致操縱。該團隊還維持了對治理的控制權，這破壞了該項目的分散性質。”

Strategies to Protect Yourself

保護自己的策略

Phil Fogel acknowledged that a concentrated token supply isn’t always a red flag. However, it’s crucial for investors to know who holds large amounts, their lock-up terms, and whether their involvement aligns with the project’s decentralization goals.

菲格爾（Phil Fogel）承認，集中的令牌供應並不總是危險信號。但是，對於投資者來說，知道誰持有大量的鎖定條款以及他們的參與是否與項目的權力下放目標保持一致，這一點至關重要。

Moreover, Ming Wu, the founder of RabbitX, also argued that analyzing this data is essential to uncover any potential risks that could undermine the project in the long term.

此外，Rabbitx的創始人明也認為，分析這些數據對於發現可能會破壞該項目的任何潛在風險至關重要。

“Tools like bubble maps can help identify potential risks related to token distribution,” Wu advised.

Wu建議：“諸如氣泡圖之類的工具可以幫助識別與令牌分佈相關的潛在風險。”

2. OM Price Action

2。 OM價格行動

2025 has been marked as the year of significant market volatility. The broader macroeconomic pressures have weighed heavily on the market, with the majority of the coins experiencing steep losses. Yet, OM’s price action was relatively stable until the latest crash.

2025年已被標記為市場波動的重大波動。更廣泛的宏觀經濟壓力在市場上的壓力很大，大多數硬幣遭受了巨大的損失。但是，直到最新崩潰，OM的價格行動都相對穩定。

“The biggest red flag was simply the price action. The whole market was going down, and nobody cared about MANTRA, and yet its token price somehow kept pumping in unnatural patterns – pump, flat, pump, flat again,” Jean Rausis disclosed.

Jean Rausis透露：“最大的危險信號僅僅是價格動作。整個市場都在下降，沒有人關心咒語，但是它的代幣價格以不自然的方式不斷地抽水 - 泵，平坦，扁平，泵，平坦。”

He added that this was a clear sign of an issue or problem with the project. Nevertheless, he noted that identifying the differentiating price action would require some technical analysis know-how. Thus, investors lacking the knowledge would have easily missed it.

他補充說，這是該項目問題或問題的明顯跡象。儘管如此，他指出，確定差異化的價格行動將需要一些技術分析的知識。因此，缺乏知識的投資者很容易錯過它。

Despite this, Rausis highlighted that even the untrained eye could find other signs that something was off, ultimately leading to the crash.

儘管如此，勞西斯強調說，即使是未經訓練的眼睛也可以找到其他跡象表明有些事情發生了，最終導致了墜機事故。

Strategies to Protect Yourself

保護自己的策略

While investors remained optimistic about OM’s resilience amid a market downturn, this ended up costing them millions. Eric He, LBank’s Community Angel Officer, and Risk Control Adviser emphasized the importance of proactive risk management to avoid OM-style collapses.

儘管投資者對OM在市場低迷時的韌性仍然樂觀，但最終使他們損失了數百萬美元。 Lbank的社區天使官員埃里克·海（Eric He）和風險控制顧問強調了主動風險管理以避免OM式崩潰的重要性。

“First, diversification is key—spreading capital across projects limits single-token exposure. Stop-loss triggers (e.g., 10-20% below buy price) can automate damage control in volatile conditions,” Eric shared with BeInCrypto.

“首先，多元化是關鍵 - 跨項目範圍內的資本限制了單次曝光。停止損害觸發器（例如，低於買入價格的10-20％）可以在波動條件下自動化損害控制，”埃里克與Beincrypto分享。

Ming Wu had a similar perspective, emphasizing the importance of avoiding over-allocation to a single token. The executive explained that a diversified investment strategy helps mitigate risk and enhances overall portfolio stability.

明吳也有類似的觀點，強調了避免過度分配到單個令牌的重要性。高管解釋說，多元化的投資策略有助於降低風險並增強整體投資組合穩定性。

“Investors can use perpetual futures as a risk management tool to hedge against potential price declines in their holdings,” Wu remarked.

吳說：“投資者可以將永久期貨用作一種風險管理工具，以對沖潛在的價格下跌。”

Meanwhile, Phil Fogel advised focusing on a token’s liquidity. Key factors include the float size, price sensitivity to sell orders, and who can significantly impact the market.

同時，菲爾·福格爾（Phil Fogel）建議專注於代幣的流動性。關鍵因素包括浮點大小，賣出訂單的價格敏感性以及誰能對市場產生重大影響。

3. Project Fundamentals

3。項目基礎

Experts also highlighted major discrepancies in MANTRA’s TVL. Eric He pointed out a significant gap between the token’s fully diluted valuation (FDV) and the TVL. OM’s FDV reached $9.5 billion, while its TVL was only $13 million, indicating a potential overvaluation

專家還強調了Mantra TVL的主要差異。埃里克（Eric）指出，令牌完全稀釋的估值（FDV）和TVL之間存在很大的差距。 OM的FDV達到95億美元，而其TVL僅為1300萬美元，表明潛在的高估