In just two days, SIREN completed a “controlled explosion” that is sufficient to be recorded in the chain's black history: dropping from about $1.3 to about $0.05, with a maximum decline of nearly 96%. The timeframe concentrated around June 13 to 15, 2026, when approximately 680 million tokens, making up the vast majority of the total supply, were heavily sold off. Market liquidity was instantly breached, panic selling was triggered in a chain reaction, and ultimately, about 64.8 million USDT and other assets were exchanged. This was not a normal price correction, but more like a premeditated liquidation ceremony: maintaining the price at a high level with a highly concentrated, unshakeable chip structure, and then pouring out in a short time, leaving all participants who did not understand the risks collectively in a position to take over.
The true destructive power of this event is not only reflected in the price curve of “plummeting 96%,” but also exposes a detail often habitually ignored by many airdrop participants: when the vast majority of tokens are held in the hands of a very few addresses, the so-called “community market,” “narrative dividends,” and “emotional warming” are all powerless at critical moments. For players looking to hedge their airdrop opportunities, if they only focus on stories, popularity, and K-lines while never reviewing token concentration and large capital flows, they are essentially handing all chips and time over to potential controllers to decide the exit order. The two-day collapse of SIREN reminds everyone: in the face of a highly imbalanced holding structure, an airdrop is merely a ticket purchase; what really decides who gets harvested is always that small group of addresses holding the sell button.
680 Million Dump: Prices Hit Rock Bottom in Two Days
When that small group of addresses known as the “SIREN Controllers” truly pressed the button, the so-called “circulating supply” was almost completely liquidated within two days. The on-chain data offers a glaring outline: approximately 680 million SIREN were continuously sold between June 13 and 15, which is roughly said to account for over 90% of the total supply. The selling pressure did not dissipate slowly but was concentrated in waves from a few addresses, dumping into on-chain liquidity pools and over-the-counter platforms. The depth of buy orders under such massive selling became effectively nonexistent and was quickly pierced through. For airdrop players and early participants, this was not an “adjustment” but rather forced collective liquidation: the chips were still in wallets, but the price had been decided for you by the controlling cluster.
The shape of the price curve is colder than any description. Before the incident, SIREN was still maintaining around $1.3, but in just two days, it was smashed down to below $0.1, ultimately dropping to about $0.05, with the maximum decline nearing 96%. Such a drop was not the result of a gradual struggle between bulls and bears but a rapid, concentrated dump from the controlling addresses, continuously matching downwards, piercing through all hanging order prices in succession. When ordinary holders opened the market, they often saw a straight line from “high point to deep pit,” involving almost no significant rebound interval, let alone any orderly stop-loss or profit-taking. For many participants holding onto expectations of “airdrop dividends” and “locking up waiting for the next round,” the only question left in those two days was: “didn’t manage to exit before the plunge, or cannot exit after the plunge.”
The more lethal factor was that the interaction between on-chain and off-chain magnified the effects of this dump. According to on-chain monitoring, about 200 million SIREN were transferred to several centralized exchanges like Binance, Gate.io, and KuCoin during the selling process, forming a closed selling loop combined with the on-chain selling pressure. The controlling addresses were supplying chips to the CEX while continuously dumping on-chain. After being rapidly consumed, the liquidity on-site followed a waterfall-style plunge, dragging the on-chain price to continue dropping. Ultimately, this round of liquidation-style selling yielded about 64.8 million USDT and other assets for the controlling cluster, leaving ordinary holders scattered across various addresses with nothing but a sea of bleeding losses on their curves and a lesson sufficiently extreme: in a structure of highly concentrated chips, “liquidity” can be drained by counterparties in just two days, and the time you have to react is often much less than you imagine.
Dividing and Selling: How Controllers Hide Behind Fragmented Addresses
Tracing back through this two-day liquidation, you'll find that the so-called “SIREN Controllers” were not a striking super wallet from the beginning, but rather a whole cluster of addresses acting in highly synchronized steps. The market simply referred to this group of addresses conveniently as the “controllers,” but the true entities and organizational structure behind them have not been officially confirmed by the project team. The outside world can only grasp the highly synchronized paths and timestamps of on-chain transactions, as well as the flow trajectory after the extremely concentrated chips were broken apart.
In the extremely short window from June 13 to 15, 2026, this cluster chose a typical “divide and conquer” route: the SIREN that was originally gathered in a few large wallets was broken down into multiple medium and small addresses, and then these addresses collectively tipped out in batches. Some of the chips flowed continuously into centralized exchanges like Binance, Gate.io, and KuCoin from different addresses, forming a visually evident but difficult to trace back to the source flood of deposits; another part was sold in the on-chain liquidity pool, appearing like scattered selling pressure across multiple points. For ordinary participants fixated on single “whale address alerts,” this fragmented sell pressure could easily be diluted into “market natural selling” on various dashboards, rather than being seen as a long-planned synchronized reduction. Some did attempt to split and analyze the selling rhythm and corresponding amounts over these two days from a single source, but the specific segmented data has not undergone cross-verification among multiple parties. The more prudent conclusion for now remains simply: within a very short time, a significant amount of chips was dumped by a group of suspected related addresses.
Because the “sole culprit” isn’t visible at the surface, the entity clustering labels provided by on-chain intelligence platforms (like Arkham, etc.) have become crucial lines for market players to identify this group of addresses—linking seemingly independent wallets into a cohesive whole through transaction paths, similar operating habits, and timing synchronicity. However, it is necessary to emphasize that these clustering conclusions are still essentially third-party intelligence judgments and not the official qualitative assessments of the project team. For airdrop radars, this event serves more as a lesson about the risks of “address clusters”: when filtering projects and warning about risks, one should not focus solely on individual major holders but consider token concentration, large transfers in a short time, and multi-address coordinated dumping to identify potential controlling behaviors. For ordinary airdrop participants, the real thing to be wary of is not a single whale address but those groups of chips that have learned to hide their real positions and exit rhythms beneath a fragmented surface.
Bottom Fishing After the Plunge: Who is Picking Up Below $0.1
When SIREN was driven down below about $0.1, the on-chain narrative suddenly shifted from “whale dumping” to “retail bottom fishing.” Around this price level, on-chain statistics began to show hundreds of new addresses steadily buying SIREN, with individual address purchases concentrated in the tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of tokens range. From the surface data, these chips were scattered into many inconspicuous small positions, combined together resembling a wave of emotion-driven “bottom fishing,” which also created the illusion for many observing airdrop players that “someone dares to take over, and the price has support.”
Controversy then followed: these small addresses stepping in at low positions, were they the spontaneous gambling of ordinary speculators or the deliberate splitting of identities by the controlling cluster to low-price buy back chips after the dump in “Act Two”? Some market observers proposed the latter hypothesis, attempting to connect the narrative of the controllers “dumping while buying back” throughout the entire trend. However, from what the airdrop radar can currently observe as on-chain side evidence, there still lacks solid clustering evidence to directly equate these small buying addresses with the prior concentrated dumping controlling addresses. There’s no verifiable public data supporting whether the controllers still had remaining holdings and whether they recovered a large amount of chips through these small addresses. For airdrop participants, the only confirmable aspect here is: the “bottom fishing narrative” after the plunge does not equate to a safety margin, and until relationships are substantiated by on-chain facts, treating it as an emotional signal is far more prudent than seeing it as a confirmed benefit.
Lessons for Airdrop Participants: The Backlash of Heavy Control and Hot Narratives
This round of massive selling of SIREN in a short time laid bare the term “highly controlled” for all participants. Before the incident, there were already single sources indicating that SIREN had once seen over 88.5% of its supply concentrated in a few wallets, which means that as long as a small group of those addresses collectively turned, the market would struggle to provide enough depth for taking over. Between June 13 and 15, approximately 680 million SIREN were concentrated and dumped, with about 94% of the total amount hitting on-chain liquidity and exchanges, causing the price to tumble from about $1.3 to about $0.05, with a drop nearing 96%. In this kind of structure, ordinary players virtually had no room for “slowly stopping losses.” Those who could see the on-chain abnormalities were already at the door, while the participants still immersed in narratives could only bear the consequences passively in the waterfall.
This path of injury coincides greatly with the habits of many current airdrop players: more people focus on price charts, social topics, and KOL emotions instead of checking the distribution and concentration of chips on-chain from the start. After the crash of SIREN, several crypto KOLs repeatedly used it as an example on social media, emphasizing that highly controlled projects are more prone to cycles of “pump—dump—low-price buy back,” with the expectation of a “V-shaped rebound after a crash” often merely being psychological comfort rather than a high-probability event. For those treating airdrops as “free chips, waiting for a market surge,” if they are unwilling to spend time verifying who actually holds the tokens before boarding, they may end up acting as liquidity and emotional fuel in a rhythm designed by others.
From the perspective of the airdrop radar, this incident resembles a reusable early warning template: extreme token concentration, the large transfer of controlling addresses to exchanges and liquidity pools, combined with popularity surging abnormally in a short time, these three elements combined should be viewed as a high-risk signal before participation, rather than proof of “opportunity arising.” When filtering and observing projects, the airdrop radar will consider these on-chain indicators alongside heat changes in AiCoin data rather than simply categorizing a project as “priority attention” just because of price and discussion upticks. For airdrop participants, the truly worthwhile opportunities are not those short-term highs built on control but projects that can withstand basic on-chain scrutiny in terms of holding structure and capital flow.
From SIREN to the Next: Avoiding Pits from the Airdrop Radar Perspective
SIREN was dumped by about 680 million tokens in mid-June 2026, with a maximum price drop of about 96%. Behind this string of extreme figures lies the duality of “highly concentrated holding structure” and “violent price fluctuation.” The controlling addresses had accumulated enough chips in the previous phase to implement an almost one-sided assault on price in a short time. Accounts analyzing on-chain paths like EmberCN and multiple media following the reports made this chain of “high concentration—violent dump—low-price buy back” a very intuitive risk education scene for recent airdrop players. By the time this story is narrated as a case, most participants can only look back at their buying and selling points on the K-line, making it difficult to alter the outcome.
For airdrop participants, what is more valuable is not to review every transaction to the decimal point after the fact but to completely reverse the order of selection: first inspect the structure and funds, then discuss the narrative and benefits. Specifically, when using the airdrop radar to participate in new projects in the future, three actions can be taken as the minimum self-defense measures: first, check the distribution of holdings; extreme concentration means that if major holders' decisions change, ordinary addresses have almost no leverage; second, observe large transfers on-chain whether there are signs of continuous outflow to liquidity pools and centralized exchanges; third, check if these actions coincide with spikes in heat within AiCoin data; if “chip outflow” and “emotional ascents” resonate strongly, the risk of control should be prioritized as a hypothesis. The airdrop radar will embed incidents like SIREN into filtering and risk control logic as negative samples, but the one who ultimately presses the “participate” button is still you, and what can keep you from the next whirlpool of concentrated selling is calmly rejecting structural risks before each new opportunity arises.
Join our community, let’s discuss, and become stronger together!
Exclusive Hyperliquid benefits from AiCoin: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
Exclusive Aster benefits from AiCoin: 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。
