What was supposed to be a routine announcement for the token migration turned into a public dispute between the MANTRA project and the cryptocurrency trading platform KX, after MANTRA accused the platform of sharing misleading and inaccurate information.
Rather than celebrating platform support, MANTRA's leadership issued an unexpected directive to token holders: do not leave your OM tokens on KX. CEO John Patrick Mullin argued that users should not rely on the platform for the upcoming migration, pointing to negligence or potential ill intent behind KX's handling of the process.
Key points of the dispute and details:
* Call to withdraw tokens: MANTRA urged OM token holders to withdraw their tokens and use self-custody instead of relying on KX.
* Dispute over the timeline: The dispute centers around OKX's announcement that the OM swap would occur between December 22 and 25.
* MANTRA's denial: MANTRA responded by stating that this timeline simply does not exist. Governance documents show that the migration can only occur after January 15, the date when the Ethereum-based OM token officially expires.
* Communication breakdown: Mullen claimed that KX remained silent towards MANTRA for several months, even as other major trading platforms coordinated directly with the project before the migration process. He referenced an unresolved incident on April 13, suggesting that KX stopped cooperating since then.
* Migration context: This dispute comes at a critical moment for the MANTRA ecosystem, as the OM token transitions from its current Ethereum-based form to a native token for the Mantra Chain, a technical shift that typically requires close coordination with custodians and trading platforms.
Outcome: The dispute leaves OM holders with conflicting information: KX indicates that the migration process is near while MANTRA warns users against relying on the platform at all. This has resulted in uncertainty regarding a process aimed at enhancing the self-sovereignty of the MANTRA chain.
KX's position: The OX platform had not publicly responded to these allegations by the time the article was published. Industry observers see this dispute as a case study on how confusion can arise when there is a mismatch between trading platforms and token issuers, especially during migrations that require timing synchronization.


