[ad_1]
\n<\/p>\n
The burn represents a significant portion of OM\u2019s total token allocation and is part of a broader \u201cstabilization strategy\u201d following the token\u2019s over 90% drop on April 13.<\/span><\/p>\n Mantra framed the decision as a commitment to long-term value creation, suggesting that cutting excess supply would support a healthier market structure. However, critics argue that the move is more about damage control than genuine progress.<\/span><\/p>\n The bearish technical outlook aligns with mounting concerns over OM\u2019s fundamentals and project transparency. Prominent analyst <\/span>Maboo<\/b> described the burn as a <\/span>\u201cdesperate\u201d attempt to fake momentum<\/b>, noting that token destruction should not be a substitute for sustainable design.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cThey launched with way too many tokens. Now they\u2019re doing staged burns to fake momentum,\u201d Maboo wrote. \u201cIf your tokenomics only make sense after destroying part of the supply\u2026 they never made sense to begin with.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Maboo also pointed out that several on-chain investigators are uncovering <\/span>\u201csketchy stuff\u201d<\/b> related to insider transactions, adding to the growing skepticism around the project. His conclusion? Mantra is giving <\/span>\u201clow-effort, high-risk vibes\u201d<\/b> \u2014 and remains a hard pass for risk-conscious investors.<\/span><\/p>\n Multiple on-chain investigators have reported suspicious activity around the crash, including <\/span>wallets linked to strategic investor Laser Digital<\/b> allegedly transferring millions of OM tokens to exchanges prior to the price collapse. Although Laser Digital denied involvement, the community remains skeptical.<\/span><\/p>\n Moreover, Mantra\u2019s fully diluted valuation (FDV) \u2014 which stood near <\/span>$1.88 billion<\/b> as of April 15 \u2014 continues to draw criticism. Despite a modest rise in total value locked (TVL) to around <\/span>$3.26 million<\/b>, the mismatch between FDV and TVL has led to accusations that the project is overvalued and highly centralized.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [ad_2]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" [ad_1] The burn represents a significant portion of OM\u2019s total token allocation and is part of a broader \u201cstabilization strategy\u201d following the token\u2019s over 90% drop on April 13. Mantra framed the decision as a commitment to long-term value creation, suggesting that cutting excess supply would support a healthier market structure. However, critics argue that the move is more about damage control than genuine progress. The bearish technical outlook aligns with mounting concerns over OM\u2019s fundamentals and project transparency. Prominent analyst Maboo described the burn as a \u201cdesperate\u201d attempt to fake momentum, noting that token destruction should not be a substitute for sustainable design. \u201cThey launched with way too many tokens. Now they\u2019re doing staged burns to fake momentum,\u201d Maboo wrote. \u201cIf your tokenomics only make sense after destroying part of the supply\u2026 they never made sense to begin with.\u201d Maboo also pointed out that several on-chain investigators are uncovering \u201csketchy stuff\u201d related to insider transactions, adding to the growing skepticism around the project. His conclusion? Mantra is giving \u201clow-effort, high-risk vibes\u201d \u2014 and remains a hard pass for risk-conscious investors. Multiple on-chain investigators have reported suspicious activity around the crash, including wallets linked to strategic investor Laser Digital allegedly transferring millions of OM tokens to exchanges prior to the price collapse. Although Laser Digital denied involvement, the community remains skeptical. Moreover, Mantra\u2019s fully diluted valuation (FDV) \u2014 which stood near $1.88 billion as of April 15 \u2014 continues to draw criticism. Despite a modest rise in total value locked (TVL) to around $3.26 million, the mismatch between FDV and TVL has led to accusations that the project is overvalued and highly centralized. \u00a0 [ad_2]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":43279,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[45],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-43278","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-financas"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/tiproject.online\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43278","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/tiproject.online\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/tiproject.online\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tiproject.online\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tiproject.online\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=43278"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/tiproject.online\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43278\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tiproject.online\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/43279"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/tiproject.online\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=43278"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tiproject.online\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=43278"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tiproject.online\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=43278"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}