In just two hours, SIREN was pushed into the abyss by its "owner." On June 13, 2026, within a time window of about 2 hours, the controlling party, who held the project's key, sold approximately 17 million SIREN through multiple addresses. According to on-chain analyst Yu Jin, this dump was valued at about 6.75 million dollars. As the selling pressure hit, the price plummeted from about 0.47 dollars to about 0.23 dollars, a drop of over 50%, described by the media as a "price cut in half." Multiple institutions, including Rhythm, Odaily Planet Daily, Gold Finance, and Foresight News, issued warnings almost simultaneously. However, what truly caught people off guard was that this massacre seemed to have been scripted long ago— the controller has long held at least about 94% of the SIREN supply, with around 680 million tokens locked in a few addresses. In such an extremely concentrated pattern, any large-scale selling naturally carries a destructive price risk. In the following content, we will unpack the details of this two-hour price crash along the on-chain footprints, following the paths of funds and positions to clarify this manipulation, and discuss the game and costs between market makers, project parties, and retail investors in the realm of small market cap tokens.
94% of the chips held by one person: The trap was long laid
When at least about 94% of the SIREN supply, approximately 680 million tokens, are concentrated in a single or a few addresses, the market was doomed to be imbalanced from the start. The vast majority of the chips not being in the public market means that the so-called "circulating supply" is merely scraps overflowing from the controlling party, and every rise and fall in price feels more like these addresses adjusting their positions, rather than thousands of participants bidding in an open market. More critically, current public information only shows the concentrated holding characteristics of on-chain addresses; who exactly is behind it—whether it is an individual, a team, or a more complex interest structure—remains hidden behind strings of characters, which makes the risk both explicit and difficult to hold accountable.
Multiple media outlets had already noted before this drop that this controller had been concentrating operations on SIREN multiple times over the past months, described as a "script of first raising the price and then selling off": a phase of concentrated price raising followed by gradual liquidation. Although these reports have not sufficiently cross-verified specific cycles and price fluctuations and can only be regarded as unconfirmed cases, they all lead to the same conclusion—that this was not a random sell-off but a long-standing operating logic. In a token that is held so highly concentrated, prices have long left the open-market pricing mechanism and are more like a profit curve repeatedly bent by the controller, with ordinary participants only passively bearing the costs brought by each bend.
Selling 17 million in two hours: The on-chain crash in full
By June 13, 2026, the controller finally broke this "profit curve" completely. According to on-chain analyst Yu Jin, within less than two hours, a group of addresses with clear funding interactions and traceable paths began to take turns selling: the main controlling address first transferred SIREN in batches to several satellite addresses, which then quickly sold off within a short time. Throughout this process, about 17 million SIREN tokens were dumped into the market, estimated at that time to be worth around 6.75 million dollars, and the price simultaneously dropped from about 0.47 dollars to about 0.23 dollars, with the media’s "price cut in half" occurring almost instantaneously. The controller's control over the price resembled pressing a switch rather than participating in a competition.
On the surface, this appeared to be a series of sell orders dispersed across different wallets, but in reality, it was a concentrated action executed concurrently by a single or few controllers through multiple addresses. For ordinary investors who are only monitoring individual large addresses or relying on price alerts, this rhythm of "splitting—transferring—synchronizing sale" is extremely difficult to identify at first. By the time they realize that selling pressure is flooding in from all directions, the on-chain transaction had already completed the entire exit loop, leaving them with the choice of either passively absorbing at mid-point or cutting losses to exit.
Price drops from 0.47 to 0.23: Retail investors find it hard to escape unscathed
According to AiCoin data, before the start of this sell-off, the price of SIREN was still around 0.47 dollars, dropping to about 0.23 dollars two hours later, resulting in a loss of more than half of its value. For many holders who had bought in at prices over 0.4 dollars, this was not just a long red line on the chart but a direct reflection of their account assets being "cut in half" in a short time. Even if they could react in time to place an exit order around 0.3 dollars, the actual transaction price was often lowered by continuous sell orders, with losses far exceeding the original risk expectation.
In a structure where the controller holds at least about 94% of the supply, ordinary traders' information and reaction speeds are nearly not on the same starting line. The controller can choose to sell through multiple addresses during the thinnest liquidity periods, allowing the price to plunge from 0.47 to 0.23 in an extremely short time, while retail investors can only see the "crash" alert that refreshes on their trading software with a few seconds' delay. The grim reality is that, as of now, the project party has not provided a clear explanation regarding this price crash, leaving participants still in the market to bear the passive locked-up losses and face long-term uncertainties after a broken trust, which is bound to weaken their willingness to participate in similar small market cap tokens for a long time.
Multiple media simultaneously issued warnings: Risks of small cap stocks amplified
While the project party remained silent, the narrative was taken over by on-chain analysts and the media. Yu Jin provided data in public channels that clearly broke down the process of selling about 17 million SIREN within two hours and the price dropping over 50% into a clear chain of events, with multiple reports directly quoting this description as a typical scene of "single or few controllers concentrated selling leading to price halving." Media outlets like Rhythm, Odaily Planet Daily, Gold Finance, and Foresight News almost simultaneously pushed out bulletins, uniformly emphasizing the high concentration of SIREN holdings, the controller's grip on at least about 94% of the supply, and that similar concentrated operations had repeatedly influenced prices.
As these reports spread, the qualitative assessment of SIREN within the industry quickly converged on a single keyword—"market maker control." Some reports directly labeled it as a "textbook case of small market cap stock manipulation," reminding readers to be wary of any tokens with excessively concentrated holdings. They pointed out that under such structures, prices are extremely sensitive to large sell-offs, leaving ordinary participants with almost no defensive space. However, multiple media outlets simultaneously retained boundaries: there are currently no authoritative institutions offering a qualitative judgment on whether this event constitutes wrongdoing or regulatory issues, and the existing information mainly comes from on-chain tracking and media digging rather than proactive disclosure by the project party, which keeps risk awareness at the level of "facts and probabilities" rather than firmly established conclusions.
How to avoid the next SIREN: Recognizing signals of high control
The core risks exposed by the SIREN crash actually boil down to two points: one is that the controller holds at least about 94% of the token supply, turning the entire curve into a "remote control" for a few addresses; the second is that this extreme concentration structure has not been communicated to ordinary participants through clear, ongoing disclosure, only relying on retrospective on-chain tracking and media reconstruction. For ordinary investors, the only defense they can strategize is to move forward: before encountering small-cap tokens, first look at the distribution of holdings, pay attention to whether one or two addresses have held the vast majority of the chips for an extended period, and trace the historical trajectory of these large addresses to see if they had concentrated buying or selling multiple times in a short period. The result of SIREN's dumping of about 17 million in two hours and the consequent price halving indicates that once prices are highly sensitive to large sales, any shifts in "market maker" sentiment can instantly transmit to the market. There are also clear dimensions worth continuous observation: whether the on-chain controlling addresses will continue to reduce positions or even clear them, whether the project party will finally provide a complete statement regarding the control and the crash, and whether, amidst the current lack of regulatory action reporting, institutions will propose clearer boundaries and rules regarding similar highly controlled events in the future.
Join our community, let’s discuss and become stronger together!
AiCoin Exclusive Hyperliquid Benefits: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
AiCoin Exclusive Aster Benefits: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
