December 13: After the recent Polygon hard fork, some Polymarket users reported issues such as placing orders that could not be executed on-chain and withdrawal delays. Some users turned to Opinion to hedge risks, leading to a surge in Opinion's trading volume, surpassing $3 billion, exceeding that of Polymarket.

December 13, according to on-chain analyst Ai Auntie (@ai_9684xtpa), address 0x074…9B748 engaged in a phased bottom panic sell 11 hours ago, selling 3296 ETH (approximately $10.3 million) and liquidating their position for a final profit of $292,000. Prior to this, two days ago, they had unrealized gains of $1.266 million (entered the position on December 2 at $3029).

December 13th, according to Onchain Lens monitoring, a newly created wallet received 14,959 ETH from BitGo, worth approximately $48.42 million. The address is speculated to belong to BitMine.

December 13th, according to The Block, top credit rating agency Moody's is introducing a new framework for evaluating stablecoins that are increasingly integrated into the traditional financial system. The agency stated on Friday: "We will assess the credit risk of stablecoin's redemption obligation and assign a rating. We recommend starting by evaluating each eligible asset type in the stablecoin reserve pool and determining its credit quality through the rating of the assets and related counterparties."This framework means that, in practice, two stablecoins claiming to be pegged 1:1 to the US dollar may receive different ratings due to differences in their underlying reserve assets.Moody's further explained: "The second step in our analysis will consider market value factors, evaluating the market value risk of each type of eligible reserve asset based on asset type and maturity. The analysis will derive a haircut rate applicable to each asset value. We further recommend incorporating factors such as operational risk, liquidity risk, technical risk, etc., into stablecoin's risk assessment, ultimately reaching a rating conclusion."Moody's is now inviting market participants to provide feedback on the proposal by January 26, 2026.

December 13th, OKX posted on social media, stating that they have found conclusive evidence indicating that multiple associated and colluding accounts used a large amount of OM tokens as collateral, borrowed a huge amount of USDT, and artificially inflated the OM price.The OKX Risk Team promptly identified this abnormal activity, contacted the relevant account holders, and requested them to correct it, but they refused to cooperate. To control the risk, the platform took control measures on these associated accounts. Shortly thereafter, the OM price plummeted. OKX only liquidated a very small portion of the OM collateral, and the significant losses caused by the drastic price drop have been fully borne by the OKX Security Fund.Multiple third-party analyses have indicated that this price crash was mainly driven by perpetual contract trading activities on non-OKX trading platforms. The OKX Security Fund has operated entirely according to its design mechanism. As of now, the other party has not explained the source of the huge OM token holdings, nor why these groups hold and control such a large proportion of the token's supply.Currently, OKX has submitted complete evidence and documents to regulatory and law enforcement agencies, and multiple legal actions and judicial procedures are underway. At the same time, OKX condemns the MANTRA team for not only failing to respond to these severe and suspicious activities but also continuously ignoring facts and publicly accusing OKX.