In early July 2026, the already thin liquidity in the TAC market suddenly dived between July 8 and 9. According to an official statement from TAC, the token experienced a significant drop in a short time over the past 24 hours, but specific percentage data on the decline was not disclosed. The steep decline in the price curve directly plunged community sentiment into a state of panic. Following this crash, the market quickly split into two narratives of "being hacked" and "internal sell-off." Some participants worried about the contract being breached and on-chain assets being transferred, while others suspected that the team or early supporters were cashing out at high prices, triggering a chain reaction of selling. In response to the escalating speculation, the TAC team issued an official statement on July 9 to address the situation: on one hand, they assured that the system was functioning normally and on-chain assets were safe, denying suffering any form of attack or hacking, and also denying the involvement of the team and early supporters in the sell-off; on the other hand, they pointed to the derivatives market, stating that a large sell order of perpetual contracts triggered a liquidation chain reaction in a thin liquidity environment, impacting contract prices and further dragging down spot prices, pushing the abnormal decline over the past 24 hours to a level that everyone could not ignore.
From Hacking Suspicions to Lock-up Clarifications: The Reversal of Panic Sentiment
When the crash first occurred, the community instinctively pointed fingers at "being hacked" or "internal sell-off." Social platforms were flooded with speculation regarding contract breaches, private key leaks, and even the project team taking the opportunity to cash out, leading to a rapid and uncontrollable slide in prices, which many participants interpreted as an external manifestation of a "systemic incident," thereby putting security and project credibility in the spotlight.
TAC's statement on July 9 directly addressed these most sensitive points of suspicion. According to the official statement, the team denied any form of attack or hacking, emphasized that the system was operating normally, all on-chain assets were secure, and internal reviews found no additional token issuance or malicious behavior, either on-chain or on associated centralized exchanges. The conclusions of this round of inspections aimed to strip the "hacked" narrative from the discussion. More crucially, the official statement clarified that the team and early supporters were not part of the selling faction: according to the official statement from TAC, the tokens held by relevant addresses were in a fully locked state, and there was currently no possibility of them being unlocked, and the team and early investors did not participate in the selling. This clarification regarding lock-up and attribution separated the crash from the so-called "internal sell-off," providing a foundation for some investors to reassess risk. Although the conclusion of "not being hacked" still lacked independent verification from third parties, after the official continuously denied hacking and emphasized the locked status, the initial panic over security began to shift from questioning codes and wallets to probing into the specifics of trading structures and contract chains, paving the way for subsequent discussions surrounding contract liquidations.
Results of Internal Review: No Evidence of Additional Minting or Malicious Behavior Found on Chain
As public opinion shifted from “being hacked” and “internal sell-off” to questioning trading structures, the TAC team’s first response was to initiate a relatively comprehensive internal review. According to the official statement, this review simultaneously covered on-chain records and the environment of relevant centralized exchanges, aiming to confirm whether there were any abnormalities in the token contract, whether the total token supply had been passively or actively expanded, and whether there were any unusual operations on the exchange side consistent with the attack hypotheses. In other words, the team sought to first answer a basic question: was this sharp drop within 24 hours a security incident or purely a price event?
The review's results were included in the statement issued on July 9. The official stated that no records of additional TAC minting were found, and the total token supply had not increased due to any abnormal events, thereby ruling out the possibility of inflation or uncontrolled minting of the contract. Based on this, the team further stated that no malicious actions or signs of attacks were found on-chain or on centralized exchange sides, which contradicted earlier community speculation about “being hacked.” This round of inspections focused on total token supply and abnormal operations provided internal evidence to support the characterization that “system and asset security, and price declines were primarily driven by trading behavior rather than security incidents.”
How a Large Perpetual Order Triggered a Liquidation Chain Reaction in Thin Markets
Along the line of thought that "price is driven by trading behavior," TAC's official statement pinpointed the direct trigger of the price crash to a large sell order of perpetual contracts. According to their description, this order appeared during a period of already limited liquidity, with limited order depth and sparse buy levels, causing a significant sell order to rapidly widen slippage after breaking through multiple price levels, creating an abrupt impact on the TAC reference price in the derivatives market. The official only described this order as "large," without disclosing the specific amount or leverage, but in such an environment, a large order in one direction inherently has the potential to ignite volatility.
The further key aspect was that this downward push triggered concentrated liquidations of leveraged positions. The statement noted that as prices rapidly fell below multiple ranges, combined with the already existing number of contract positions using margin trading in the market, a batch of perpetual positions was continuously pushed to liquidation thresholds at similar price ranges, creating a typical chain reaction: passive liquidation orders kept stacking on the sell side, further driving down derivatives prices. According to the official narrative, this round of chain liquidations occurring in the derivatives market also transmitted to the spot side, resulting in both accounts hedging their positions and mechanically triggered selling orders exacerbating the selling pressure in the spot market in a short period, ultimately transforming a large perpetual sell order into a sharp decline in TAC's spot price over that time period.
Derivatives Impacting Spot: The Thin Liquidity Risk Illustrated by the TAC Case
Within the official event chain, the entire price crash was almost entirely a "structural accident": a large sell order in the perpetually limited contract market opened a gap, and subsequently, the liquidation mechanisms took over, magnifying originally manageable fluctuations into chain liquidations. According to TAC's official statement and the event background, at that time, the overall liquidity in the TAC market was relatively thin, meaning that every passive sell would slide down the order book further. The price imbalance on the perpetual contract end quickly transferred to the spot side through hedging accounts and mechanically triggered selling orders of risk control models, culminating in a “technical adjustment” of derivatives evolving into a substantial collapse on the spot market.
What adds tension to this situation is that during this severe downturn, the project's fundamentals did not show any officially recognized hard damage. The TAC team repeatedly emphasized on July 9 that the system was operating normally and that on-chain assets were secure, denying any form of attack or hacking, as well as denying the involvement of the team and early supporters in selling; the internal review also found no signs of additional token minting, and the total token supply had not increased due to any abnormal events. In other words, under the premises of "not being hacked, no internal sell-off, and no additional issuance," the price could still be torn apart in 24 hours by the cumulative risks of large orders and high leveraged positions in perpetual contracts. This highlights the core vulnerability in a thin liquidity environment: when market depth is insufficient and derivatives leverage is too high, a single-direction large transaction can completely rewrite the path of spot prices through liquidation chains.
July Restructuring Commitment: How TAC Plans to Rebuild Trading Depth and Trust
After this fragile structure was exposed, TAC chose to bet its answer on "July restructuring." According to TAC's official statement, the team is researching measures to strengthen market structure and deepen liquidity, aiming to reduce the probability of single large perpetual contracts triggering chain liquidations again by optimizing the trading environment, at least adding a defensive line at the mechanism level. The official previewed that relevant adjustment plans would be implemented later in July 2026, but did not provide a more detailed timetable or disclose specific technical or product solutions, leaving the external parties to adjust their limited expectations based only on the directional keywords of "market structure" and "liquidity deepening." What truly needs to be closely monitored next is not the statements themselves, but three verifiable links: first, what restructuring measures they actually rolled out, second, whether these measures show a perceivable repair effect on TAC’s trading depth, and third, after experiencing the drastic decline and subsequent explanations, whether the community and token holders' acceptance of the project governance and risk narrative leads to choosing to give it more time or viewing this sharp fluctuation as a turning point in trust relationship.
Join our community to discuss and grow 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。
