DEXE has fallen 96.8% over 11 days, dropping from a record high near $49.43 to $1.56, while a series of large Ceffu transfers to Binance has raised questions about whether DWF Labs or other connected parties may have been involved.

On-chain analyst Ai Yi reported in an X post that DEXE (DEXE) reached an all-time high of $49.432 on July 12, before the decline began the next day. According to the analyst’s timeline, the sharpest move occurred on July 21, when the token fell as much as 88% in a single trading day, sliding from $46.93 to $5.648.

In reviewing large on-chain flows around the decline, Ai Yi found that most transfers originated from centralized exchange hot wallets. Ceffu was the only non-exchange entity identified in the review that moved more than $1 million worth of DEXE, making its activity stand out among the transactions examined.

Since July 13, Ceffu, a crypto custody platform, has transferred 797,917.24 DEXE to Binance in six transactions, Ai Yi said. The tokens were worth a combined $6.15 million at the time the on-chain transfers occurred, although their value would have been significantly higher before the price collapse.

Large exchange deposits are closely watched because they can precede selling, liquidity provision, collateral management or internal settlement. In this case, the presence of a custody platform and an off-exchange mirroring mechanism makes the timing harder to interpret from blockchain records alone.

Ceffu’s MirrorX service may explain delayed settlement

Ai Yi’s analysis centered on Ceffu’s MirrorX service, which allows institutional clients to trade on exchanges while keeping assets in custody. Under the mechanism described by the analyst, DEXE deposited with Ceffu can be mirrored as a corresponding position on an exchange, with the related on-chain transfer settled at a later point.

Because trading activity may occur before tokens visibly move on-chain, Ai Yi said the six transfers may not indicate when the associated positions were first used. If the 797,917 DEXE had been positioned for trading before the price began falling on July 13, the analyst estimated that the tokens would have carried an effective value of about $39.44 million.

Ai Yi presented that sequence as a possible explanation for the timing of the transfers, not as proof that the tokens were sold before on-chain settlement. The post did not identify the owner of the assets, did not establish that all 797,917 DEXE had been sold, and did not provide direct evidence linking the transfers to the initial price decline.

The source of the custodial balance also remains unclear. After reviewing public project information, Ai Yi said there was no evidence that the DEXE team had deposited tokens with Ceffu. According to the analyst, much of the supply associated with the project appeared to remain in the decentralized autonomous organization’s treasury and in contracts covering team-related lockups.

That distinction matters because on-chain tracing can show wallet movements but often cannot identify the beneficial owner behind custodial accounts, institutional trading services or exchange-linked balances without additional disclosures from the parties involved.

Falcon Finance links bring DWF Labs into focus

Looking for another possible route by which DEXE could have reached Ceffu, Ai Yi reviewed DEXE’s official partner list and pointed to Falcon Finance. The analyst noted that Falcon had supported DEXE as collateral on its platform and that Ceffu was among the institutions used for Falcon’s asset custody.

Ai Yi also identified links between Falcon Finance and DWF Labs, while DWF Labs appeared separately on DEXE’s partner list. Based on those public connections, the analyst suggested that the DEXE held through Ceffu could have involved DWF Labs, Falcon Finance, the project team, or another market maker.

The post did not provide evidence proving that DWF Labs, Falcon Finance, Ceffu, or the DEXE team caused the crash. Ai Yi characterized the conclusion as an early assessment based on on-chain movements and a process of tracing public links, while leaving open other explanations for the transfers.

Neither the transfer records nor the cited partnerships establish who controlled the DEXE positions represented through MirrorX. Ai Yi also did not rule out potential involvement by the project or other market makers, but the post did not reach a conclusive finding on who may have been responsible for any selling.

DEXE’s collapse comes after two other steep token sell-offs reported by crypto.news in recent weeks, underscoring how quickly market confidence can deteriorate when large token concentrations, unclear flows or security incidents become the focus of public scrutiny. On July 3, LAB fell more than 60% from a June 27 high near $20 to an intraday low of $7.50, as concerns over insider holdings, token transparency and derivatives liquidations contributed to panic selling.

Crypto.news reported that the LAB drop followed community scrutiny of allegations from on-chain investigator ZachXBT, who had claimed that insiders controlled more than 95% of LAB’s supply. ZachXBT also raised concerns about private over-the-counter agreements, changing vesting schedules and insider-wallet movements. Those public allegations have not been established in court, and the LAB team has disputed or not accepted many of them publicly.

Humanity Protocol’s H token recorded another sharp decline on June 9, losing more than 80% after attackers drained wallets linked to the project. Unlike the unresolved questions surrounding the DEXE transfers, the Humanity Protocol team confirmed that attackers had compromised a private key belonging to a Humanity Foundation member.

Humanity Protocol operates an identity network built on a zero-knowledge Ethereum Virtual Machine and uses palm biometrics with zero-knowledge proofs to verify unique users. The project says its design enables identity checks without storing users’ full personal information in large centralized databases.