From June 12 to 14, 2026, in just about a day and a half, the address marked as "SIREN controller" by blockchain analysis institutions began to dump its holdings: approximately 360 million SIREN were continuously thrown out, exchanging for about 48.7 million USDT and other dollar-pegged assets (according to EmberCN's sole source). Just a week prior, the token was pushed up to about $1.3, but during this wave of selling storm, it plummeted to about $0.06 at one point, a retracement of about 95% from the peak, exposing the weak liquidity and lack of price support to all participants. Ironically, after the sell-off, the address still held approximately 319 million SIREN, which accounted for about 44% of the total supply, indicating that the "crash" was not truly complete; it merely hedged a portion of high-volatility chips into dollar-pegged assets, leaving the future price risk on-chain, allowing the secondary market to reprice such assets under the looming shadow of a potential sell-off. The core data of the event comes from EmberCN and has been reiterated by multiple Chinese media, spreading on-chain as a templated story: when risk appetite begins to decline or implicit concentration is exposed, long-tail small-cap coins are the first to be abandoned, with funds withdrawing from these tokens characterized by obvious control structures, flowing back into cash equivalents like USDT and more liquid assets like BTC and ETH, while the overall risk premium for high-concentration small-cap coins is being redefined by round after round of such controlled sell-off events.
In a Day and a Half, 360 Million Sold: SIREN Plummets 95%
From June 12 to 14, the address marked as "SIREN controller" was almost pouring out its holdings in an assembly line rhythm: in about 1.5 days, approximately 360 million SIREN were cumulatively sold off. A week before the sell-off, SIREN was still hovering near high prices, reaching about $1.3 at one point; as this address continuously dumped its holdings, the buying support was quickly exhausted, and the price was rapidly pierced through layer upon layer, dropping to about $0.06 at its lowest during the sell-off, a about 95% retracement from the peak. In an already thinly liquid trading environment with limited market-making depth, such a magnitude of unilateral selling pressure is almost equivalent to draining the entire market from its base, and the price can only seek a new trading balance through sharp declines.
The market's extreme reaction to this sell-off is not just due to the numerical figure of 360 million, but also because the previous holdings were highly concentrated, and the price was highly tied to the actions of a single large holder. Traders had long internalized this address as the "price switch for SIREN": once the "controller" began large-scale selling, it would be interpreted as a signal of top-level capital retreat, and a small amount of selling would be enough to trigger a follow-up sell-off, with weak liquidity amplifying the impact of every sell order. SIREN dropping from $1.3 down to $0.06 is not just a story of a crash; it serves as a reminder to the market: in such controlled structures, the greater the apparent price elasticity on the upside, the more the downside elasticity and damage will be multiplied when the controlling funds act in reversal.
Still Holding 44% of the Chips: The Shadow of Selling Pressure Remains
After one round of selling, the story does not end. Data from EmberCN indicates that after selling about 360 million SIREN and cashing out about 48.7 million USDT, the address seen as the "controller" still holds approximately 319 million SIREN on-chain, accounting for about 44% of the total. The project team has not fully disclosed the supply and circulation structure, leaving the market to rely on on-chain data to reverse-engineer the concentration; claims regarding its earlier holdings at a higher ratio have yet to be cross-confirmed by mainstream channels, resulting in a blurred and dangerous gray area between the "realized sell-off" and the "unrealized sell-off"—any additional selling would be interpreted as a sequel to the previous round of crash, rather than an isolated event.
In terms of pricing, this "remaining selling pressure" will be capitalized in advance. A single address holding over 40% of the supply for an extended period is perceived as a continuous structural risk by most traders: even if there are no new sell orders in the short term, buyers will embed discounts into their quotes, viewing potential future sell-offs as an "implied cost." The result is that tokens like SIREN, which have a highly controlled structure, struggle to obtain a valuation multiple aligned with their own narrative or short-term growth; even when demand temporarily surges, the price will ultimately be pressed down to a long-term discount due to "that big chunk of potential sell orders above." More broadly, similar events replaying in long-tail tokens will prompt funds to raise the overall risk premium for all high-concentration structures; once risk appetite wanes or unexpected events are exposed, liquid assets like BTC, ETH, and USDT will become safe havens, while "who holds more than 40% of the chips" is quietly becoming a key variable determining the discount and premium of this asset sequence.
48.7 Million USDT Acquired: Selling Pressure Converted into Dollar Peg
When the "last bite" of the sell order fell, the on-chain numbers had already provided a clear answer: according to EmberCN statistics, the address marked as the SIREN controller sold about 360 million SIREN in less than two days, exchanging for about 48.7 million USDT. Whether the sell-off was completed through CEX or DEX has not been disclosed, but the path is not important; what matters is the direction—this is a typical action of withdrawing from high-volatility chips and returning to a dollar-pegged "cash position." From the controller's perspective, this equates to locking in the previously accumulated paper volatility in a weak liquidity pool into a position that can be exited any time from the crypto system or even connected to the offshore dollar system; it is a highly complete swap from risk assets to dollar-pegged assets.
For on-chain liquidity, the withdrawal of 48.7 million USDT is akin to a "drainage impact" on any small-cap token's liquidity pool: on one side, the SIREN pool instantaneously bled out, and price support collapsed; on the other side, this large amount of dollar-pegged assets reverted to potential selling pressure or a "cash" stance within the system. On a larger asset scale, this controller's self-protection is not an isolated incident, but rather rewrites the same path repeated in multiple past cycles for long-tail sectors: once risk appetite cools, funds first flow back from long-tail tokens to dollar-pegged assets like USDT, and then further concentrate towards high-liquidity assets like BTC and ETH, resulting in an overall deepening of the valuation discount for long-tail tokens, while mainstream assets gain additional liquidity premiums during style rotations.
The Cost of Retail Investors Getting Buried and Narrative Breakdown
In such a highly concentrated holding structure, the information advantage naturally favors large holders. SIREN was pushed up to about $1.3 just a week before the sell-off, but liquidity was mainly controlled by a few large holders; retail investors mostly learned of the news and entered the market only when the price had already been elevated and trading seemed "active" through secondary channels. By the time the controller address began continuous selling from June 12 to 14, driving the price down to about $0.06, the approximately 95% retracement had almost "zeroed out" the funds that chased the price high. On-chain markings and media reports were mostly widely disseminated only during or after the sell-off, and the relationship between the project team and the controller has not been publicly confirmed, leaving retail investors passive in terms of information, timing, and chip structure, only able to meet the selling pressure explained afterwards with real money.
Price dropping from $1.3 to $0.06 is not just an extreme fluctuation; it directly breaches the narratives around SIREN's growth potential and yield space: when core chips vote with their feet, exchanging for around 48.7 million USDT and other dollar-pegged assets, the market finds it hard to believe the story of "long-term win-win." The greater cost is that it re-labels the entire sector as "controlled coins"—investors will categorize this model as yet another instance of "pump—control over—retail investors holding the bag," elevating the risk premium for long-tail tokens, systematically discounting the valuations of small-cap high-yield stories, leading funds to prefer pricing such assets at greater discounts, while pushing positions towards USDT and more liquid assets like BTC and ETH in a more cautious structure to cope with future narrative collapses.
The Pricing Discount for High-Concentration Tokens Will Persist
This round of controlled selling of SIREN has exposed a previously abstract macro variable to the market: in the already weak liquidity long-tail sector, the concentration of holdings itself is a "risk factor." When a single address still holds about 44% of the supply and previously led the pricing around $1.3 through market making, the market is forced to embed a higher manipulation risk premium in its pricing; and when this address dumped 360 million SIREN in about 1.5 days, exchanging for about 48.7 million USDT, with the price dropping to as low as $0.06, funds voted with their feet—retreating from high-volatility tokens to a combination of "dollar-pegged + deep liquidity" assets. For incremental funds, the more frequently this script occurs, the stronger a preference will be reinforced: they would rather concentrate their risk exposure in mainstream assets like BTC and ETH, which have deeper liquidity and more dispersed holding structures, allowing long-tail narratives to trade within discounted ranges. For individual investors, this means that when evaluating new tokens, one cannot solely look at short-term gains and market capitalization narratives but must incorporate "the proportion of holdings by top addresses, the entry and exit rhythm of large on-chain holders" into the risk pricing model, as these variables become imbalanced, the price curve usually does not have time to react. Looking ahead, every similar controlled sell-off marked and disseminated faster by on-chain tools like EmberCN may accelerate the clearing of selling pressure in the short term, but in the medium term, it will force the market to systematically raise the discount rates for high concentration, small-cap tokens, thus completing the long-term clearance of poor quality assets at lower valuation levels.
Join our community to 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。
