Analyzing the whale manipulation pattern from SIREN's surge: Structural risks in the cryptocurrency market and on-chain tracking

According to monitoring data from the on-chain analysis platform Lookonchain, an unidentified whale has withdrawn a total of 31.55 million SIREN tokens from CEXs over the past two weeks, which is approximately $64.67 million at the current price. Meanwhile, the SIREN price experienced a sharp increase of over 150% today. Based on Gate’s market data, the price of SIREN rose from around $0.8 to a high of $2.26 within 24 hours, a 150% intraday increase. As of the time of writing, the price has fallen back to around $1.2.

The high synchronization of withdrawal activity and price movement over time constitutes the most noteworthy core feature of this event. On-chain data sources show that the whale executed the withdrawals in multiple batches and non-continuously, rather than all at once. This pattern suggests that the withdrawal behavior may have a clear market intention, rather than being purely asset transfer. However, from a causal perspective, the whale’s token withdrawal does not necessarily cause the price to rise; the transmission mechanism between the two requires further analysis.

Position Structure Reveals Extreme Concentration: How a Single Entity Controls Most of the Circulating Supply

Supply concentration is a key variable in understanding SIREN’s price behavior. According to on-chain analyst tracking data, as of March 2026, among the top 54 SIREN holder addresses, excluding burn addresses and specific wallets, the remaining 52 addresses are suspected to belong to the same controlling entity. This entity holds a total of 644 million tokens, accounting for 88.5% of the total supply of SIREN, with a book value of approximately $1.44 billion.

This data corroborates conclusions from other on-chain analysis platforms. Bubblemaps previously pointed out that about 47% to 50% of SIREN’s supply is concentrated in a single related wallet cluster, which is held across dozens of wallets to create an illusion of dispersed circulation. This structure implies that the actual tradable circulating supply in the market is far lower than the nominal supply, and any moderate buy pressure could trigger outsized price fluctuations.

Additionally, on-chain investigator ZachXBT found traceable on-chain links between some SIREN-related wallets and token addresses involved with DWF Labs. Although this connection has not been officially confirmed, it provides an additional reference for market judgments regarding the market maker identity behind SIREN.

Classic Paradigm of Market Manipulation: How Supply Control Translates into Price Leverage

In the cryptocurrency market, manipulating prices through controlling spot supply is not uncommon. The operational logic demonstrated in the SIREN case can be summarized as follows: highly concentrated holdings → artificially creating scarcity → pushing up spot prices → triggering passive buy orders in leveraged markets (such as short squeeze) → forming a self-reinforcing cycle of rapid price increase.

On-chain data shows that before the price surge, a small group of wallets systematically accumulated over 70% of the circulating supply of SIREN and other tokens on mainstream trading platforms. By controlling most of the spot tokens, manipulators can effectively influence the price direction. The core of this strategy is to push up the spot price, creating a significant premium over perpetual futures contracts, thereby triggering arbitrage and other market participants’ passive buying.

Data from Coinglass indicates that during the price spike, the total short liquidations of SIREN alone exceeded $15 million within 24 hours, and the related funding rate once soared to an annualized -2000%. Such extreme rates force short holders to either close positions at huge losses or pay excessive maintenance costs.

Repetition of Patterns in Historical Cases: Structural Fragility of Low-Liquidity Tokens

The SIREN event is not an isolated case. In early April 2026, NOM tokens experienced a similar manipulation pattern: one address withdrew 1.72 billion NOM (about 59% of the circulating supply at the time) from exchanges on April 1, and ten days later, deposited 674 million tokens back into exchanges, causing NOM’s price to drop 25%. This “withdraw first, deposit later” rhythm is often seen by market observers as a way to create a scarcity illusion and profit from price manipulation.

RAVE tokens also exhibit highly similar structural features to SIREN: only 24% of the total supply is circulating, over 90% of the tokens are controlled by the team or internal wallets, and on-chain data shows systematic accumulation by mysterious wallets before price surges.

The common points among these cases are: highly concentrated token supply, low liquidity, and deep involvement of leveraged market participants. When these three conditions are met simultaneously, a single entity controlling spot supply can exert asymmetric influence on futures markets, often leaving retail investors at a disadvantage due to information asymmetry.

Risk Exposure and Investor Responses: On-Chain Tracking as an Identification Tool

From a risk analysis perspective, SIREN’s current market structure presents two layers of hidden risks. The first is the risk of price correction. The concentrated supply structure amplifies upward movements but similarly magnifies downward risks. If large holders decide to start selling, their control over the supply can quickly turn into selling pressure, potentially causing a decline far beyond what ordinary market participants expect.

The second is the overestimation of actual market liquidity. Since a large portion of tokens are not truly circulating in the open market, the real market size may be much smaller than the market cap suggests, and both buy and sell sides’ actual liquidity depth is overestimated.

For market participants, on-chain data tracking provides an effective tool to identify such structural risks. Monitoring large addresses’ movements, changes in token distribution, and the timing of withdrawals and deposits via blockchain explorers or analysis platforms like Lookonchain can help assess potential fund flows before price volatility occurs. Additionally, paying attention to abnormal changes in funding rates and the long/short positions in derivatives markets can assist in understanding the true drivers of price movements.

Summary

The recent surge in SIREN’s price is fundamentally a price volatility triggered by a combination of highly concentrated supply, on-chain behaviors, and leverage market mechanisms. The highly synchronized withdrawal of 31.55 million tokens and the price surge points to potential market manipulation rather than purely natural supply and demand.

From a broader perspective, this event reflects the structural risks faced by low-liquidity crypto assets in an environment lacking effective regulation and transparency. Extreme supply concentration allows a few market participants to exert disproportionate influence on prices, while retail investors often find themselves at a disadvantage due to information asymmetry.

The transparency of on-chain data offers a technical path to identify such risks, but public data does not equate to information symmetry. Extracting meaningful signals from vast address movements remains a long-term challenge for market participants. For investors monitoring these dynamics, combining on-chain tracking tools, paying attention to token distribution, and observing funding rate changes may be effective ways to reduce informational disadvantages.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Did the whale withdrawing 31.55 million SIREN tokens directly cause the price surge?

On-chain data shows that the withdrawal activity and the price surge are highly synchronized in time, but from a causal mechanism, token withdrawal itself does not directly push up the price. A more plausible explanation is that the controlling entity, by holding most of the circulating supply and leveraging short squeeze mechanisms, amplified buying pressure and triggered passive buy-ins. The withdrawal to on-chain wallets may be aimed at reducing tradable supply on exchanges, thereby strengthening control over the spot price.

Q: How high is the supply concentration of SIREN?

According to tracking data from multiple on-chain analysis platforms, SIREN’s supply is extremely concentrated. An entity suspected of market making holds about 88.5% of the total supply, and approximately 47% to 50% of the supply is concentrated in a single related wallet cluster. This means the actual tradable tokens in the market are far fewer than the nominal supply.

Q: What risks does this supply concentration pose to ordinary investors?

The main risks include: sharp sell-offs during price corrections, overestimation of actual market liquidity, and the possibility that decisions by a single large holder could have decisive impacts on the price. If large holders begin systematic selling, the same structural dynamics that drove the price up could also accelerate declines.

Q: How can on-chain data be used to identify similar market manipulation behaviors?

Signals to watch include: whether token holdings are highly concentrated in a few addresses, whether there are large withdrawals followed by rapid price increases, whether funding rates show extreme volatility, and whether there are “withdraw first, deposit later” patterns. Using platforms like Lookonchain to track large address movements can help identify potential fund flows early.

Q: Does SIREN’s current price have fundamental support?

Currently, it is difficult to perform fundamental valuation due to the lack of data on total locked value and protocol revenue. The price movements seem primarily driven by on-chain accumulation behaviors and leverage market mechanisms rather than widespread product usage or organic user growth.