On April 17, 2026, Beijing time, the SIREN token was monitored on the blockchain for extreme chip concentration and large withdrawals: a single withdrawal of 1,369,000 SIREN from the Binance Alpha wallet, estimated at around $2.45 million at that time. According to on-chain analyst Ai Yi's monitoring, 93% of the token chips are concentrated in a few addresses, which means that the vast majority of circulating chips are locked up in the hands of a very small number of entities. The market controversy quickly focused on a sensitive intersection: when the permissions of centralized wallet accounts combine with the new wallet's support for multi-account derivation and other features, is it inadvertently amplifying the risks of manipulation for small- and medium-cap tokens?
What does it mean that 93% of chips are locked in a few hands?
When Ai Yi provided the data that “the concentration of chips exceeds 93%," the first implication is the extreme thinness of the circulating supply: under such a structure, the chips that can truly flow freely in the market and have their prices determined by multiple parties are less than 7%. Tokens of this type often have very thin order books; a slightly larger buy or sell order is enough to cause exaggerated price fluctuations in a short time, providing a natural soil for manipulation.
Pulling the focus back to the 1,369,000 pieces, about $2.45 million withdrawal, one can more intuitively perceive the control capacity of a single entity. When one address or a group of highly correlated addresses controls an overwhelming proportion of the entire token supply, any decisions they make to increase holdings, lock-up, place orders, or sell off at any node will have an amplifying effect on the price. The price no longer reflects the collective result of many participants, but rather resembles an amplified projection of the "emotional curve of a few people."
This is also why on-chain analysts summarize potential manipulation paths as “chip concentration - lifting - dumping trilogy”: first accumulating a large number of low-cost chips through over-the-counter trades or deep buried orders in the early stages, then quickly raising the price through continuous buy orders and removing sell walls, and finally unloading at high positions, dumping massive chips to retail investors and short-term funds chasing up in the secondary market. For ordinary investors, the greatest risk often is not “losing a little,” but rather standing at the opposing end of concentrated chips without any preparation.
The path from Binance Alpha withdrawal to on-chain games
In this incident, a key visible path on-chain is the Binance Alpha wallet transferring 1,369,000 SIREN to the on-chain address 0xB57a00f0C46585db22926C365B849ec7699f6a45 and a group of external wallets. From the behavioral trajectory alone, this is a typical “centralized account - on-chain address” migration process: first withdrawing substantial chips from a large or aggregated wallet at the exchange, then distributing and scheduling it through a few controlled addresses.
When the chips move away from the exchange, the manipulation method shifts from "order book matching or using orders to game" to the stage of "on-chain liquidity pools and aggregated routes." Concentrated chips can create trading volume and price increases through batch buying in decentralized exchanges, or suddenly retract buy orders and slam weak buy walls at key price ranges, triggering chain reactions in algorithmic trading and emotional trading. On-chain transparency allows every large operation to be traced, but under the cover of delayed information and complex paths, most retail investors can only see "lifting" or "plummeting" from the result of price fluctuations, yet struggle to timely restore the underlying logic of chip movement.
From the perspective of the exchange, such a large withdrawal itself is enough to amplify market sentiment fluctuations in the short term. For regular users holding SIREN, seeing millions of pieces, millions of dollars worth of chips flowing out of the exchange often evokes the immediate association: "Is there an internal whale preparing a scheme?" Once social platforms begin to spread phrases like “chip concentration” or “preparing to dump,” even if prices do not show severe fluctuations, panic and FOMO sentiments will ferment in advance, magnifying each price fluctuation.
The gray area of single mnemonic 99 account functionality and multi-address collaboration
In this narrative, one unavoidable background is the feature introduced in the Binance Wallet Plugin version 1.12.0: a single mnemonic can derive up to 99 cross-chain accounts. From the product design intention, this aligns with the user's need to manage multi-chain, multi-address assets with one mnemonic, reducing key management complexity, and making it easier for users to compartmentalize assets and isolate strategies—in normal usage scenarios, it is a “progress” that enhances user experience and security.
However, when we shift our focus back to small-cap tokens like SIREN with high chip concentration, the reminder from Odaily Planet Daily becomes particularly glaring—“Beware of coordinated operations across derived accounts”. If the same entity can efficiently generate and manage up to 99 addresses under one mnemonic, then what appears on-chain is no longer a “whale,” but potentially many superficially unrelated but actually highly synchronized “independent accounts.”
In potential abuse scenarios, the same operator can use these derived addresses to play various roles such as “actively placing orders to lift prices,” “creating trades for volume,” and “showing screenshots of multiple buy addresses on social media,” creating the illusion of a “market-wide consensus to buy up.” For ordinary investors who do not understand the underlying address structure, it is easy to misinterpret this designed address distribution as “broad market consensus and multi-point buy support,” thus psychologically easing their vigilance against concentrated chip risks.
Under the shadow of the old Mango case, a new script for multi-account collaboration
Similar multi-account collaborative manipulation has already left a deep impression on the market during the 2024 Mango Markets event. The key tactic at that time was: the same manipulator controlled multiple sets of accounts, buying heavily on certain trading pairs to push up the target price, while using these artificially elevated prices as collateral to increase borrowing limits or liquidation thresholds, engaging in “aggressive gaming under a compliant facade” within on-chain rules. The essence of multi-account collaborative operation is to exploit vulnerabilities in risk control and price discovery mechanisms through “identity fragmentation.”
When comparing the old Mango case with the current SIREN chip pattern, several similarities can be seen: firstly, there is a high concentration of chips; secondly, there exists a real possibility for coordinated actions through multiple addresses. However, there are also differences: Mango occurred at the intersection of decentralized lending and derivative protocols, with manipulators primarily utilizing on-chain liquidation and oracle mechanisms; whereas the issues currently exposed with SIREN seem more like a combination of “off-chain concentrated chip permissions + on-chain liquidity and wallet features,” lacking the liquidation aspect, but adding variables from centralized exchanges and wallet products.
In this structure, on-chain transparency and off-chain concentrated permissions create a subtle tension. On the one hand, all address behaviors are recorded on-chain, theoretically making them easier to trace and expose; on the other hand, when the vast majority of chips are held within a few people’s exchange accounts and their derived addresses, what is transparent is merely the outcome, not the decision-making process. Manipulators can concentrate chips off-chain first, and then use the wallet's multi-account feature to split and disguise them on-chain, making structures that “appear dispersed but are actually concentrated” increasingly common, forming a new template for manipulation scripts.
Role reconstruction under mood reversals and regulatory pressure
Interestingly, on the same day that discussions about SIREN's chip concentration and large withdrawals were amplified, the U.S. stock market cryptocurrency concept stocks presented a different scene: according to msx.com data, that day COIN rose 1.09% and MSTR rose 1.56%, with overall sentiment skewing warm. This starkly contrasts a steady rise in large compliant platform stocks alongside unsettling stories of small-cap tokens "surrounded by chips," showcasing a strong sense of disconnection: the institutional and compliant track is absorbing risk appetite, while long-tail assets accumulate structural risks amidst violent rotations.
In projects with high chip concentration, retail investors' entry and exit inherently experience asymmetric risk. When entering, they see rising curves and “seemingly dispersed buy addresses,” but often fail to grasp the true chip control structure behind; when exiting, they face sudden liquidity exhaustion and skyrocketing slippage—a reality that, if the controlling entity chooses to simultaneously exit at narrow exits, leaves very little for latecomers who are often looking into an abyss with almost no support. The price amplitude seems lively, but in reality it is an implicit structural injustice where “a few make decisions, and the majority pay the bill.”
Against this backdrop, centralized exchanges and wallet product providers inevitably bear potential regulatory and public opinion pressures from the outside. On one hand, they need to continuously seek a balance between compliance and innovation: features like single mnemonic derivation of multiple accounts and cross-chain asset aggregation are already industry trends that are hard to retreat from due to individual abuse scenarios; on the other hand, when these features are used to amplify manipulation risks and cover multi-address collaborative behaviors, external inquiries will point to their responsibilities in risk control, warning, and address behavior identification. How to enhance the recognition and alert capability for abnormal chip concentrations and suspicious collaborative actions without infringing on user privacy and normal usage freedom will increasingly become a focal point of attention for regulators and the market.
What can you do before the next chip siege arrives?
The SIREN incident has put several key risk points in the spotlight: extreme chip concentration makes the price seem more like a game for a few; centralized wallet and exchange account permissions determine whether these chips can be massively migrated in a short time, while multi-account derivation and collaborative operations provide a new disguise for manipulation behaviors. When these three combine, small-cap tokens can easily complete a closed loop of “chip siege—lifting—dumping” in a short cycle, while ordinary participants often can only trace the entire process retrospectively from on-chain data.
For investors, a feasible self-protection path primarily lies in proactive on-chain monitoring of chip structures. Before participating in any token, prioritize checking the chip distribution: do the top addresses occupy an excessively high proportion, and are the holdings of the top 10 or top 20 addresses already locking up the circulating supply; also pay attention to the frequency and directional changes in transactions between large addresses and centralized exchanges, raising alarms when concentrating withdrawals or deposits of similar millions of pieces, millions of dollars occurs. Additionally, watch for large numbers of “new addresses created with close timestamps and highly synchronized actions” repeatedly performing similar operations in a short time, which often signals early signs of multi-address collaboration.
From a longer-term perspective, wallet products and exchanges also need to redraw the lines between innovation and anti-manipulation. On one hand, the functionalities of single mnemonic derivation of multiple accounts and cross-chain unified management are already industry trends and cannot be entirely rolled back due to individual abuse scenarios; on the other hand, they can introduce smarter risk control and alert mechanisms without touching privacy boundaries, such as significant risk markings for assets with extreme chip concentrations, behavior profiling and alerts for suspicious multi-address collaborative behavior, and cooperating with on-chain analysis agencies to share risk rating information for addresses. When product and infrastructure layers consider how to make manipulation more costly and information more symmetrical from the design outset, the next similar chip siege might not catch the market off guard.
Join our community, let’s discuss, and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
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。
