The October 2026 crypto market shock did not affect every cryptocurrency in the same way. While Bitcoin and Ethereum experienced broader market pressure, several smaller altcoins faced a much more direct problem: large amounts of their tokens entered the market through decentralized exchanges, where available liquidity was not always sufficient to absorb the selling.

FUNToken (FUN) became one of the clearest examples. Its price dropped more than 90% in a Uniswap trading pool during the reported selling activity. Other projects, including Reserve Rights (RSR), RedStone (RED), Gitcoin (GTC), Origin Protocol (OGN), and Prom (PROM), also attracted attention as investigators tracked the movement of affected tokens.

This article looks at what happened to these individual cryptocurrencies, how their projects responded, and what investors should understand about liquidity, selling pressure, and token market risks.

Which Altcoins Were Affected by the Binance Incident?

Several smaller cryptocurrencies experienced selling pressure after tokens associated with the incident entered decentralized markets.

The following table summarizes the main assets identified in market and blockchain reporting.

Cryptocurrency	Project	Reported development
FUN	FUNToken	More than 90% decline in an affected Uniswap pool
PROM	Prom	Large reported holdings compared with daily trading volume
RSR	Reserve Rights	Large token swaps and temporary liquidity withdrawal
RED	RedStone	Approximately 17.1% 24-hour decline in the reported snapshot
GTC	Gitcoin	Selling pressure and project liquidity response
OGN	Origin Protocol	Approximately 9%–13.6% decline in the reported group
YFI	Yearn Finance	Selling activity and market pressure
1INCH	1inch	Selling activity on decentralized exchanges
SOPH	Sophon	Included in the reported token watchlist
ERA	Caldera	Included in the reported token watchlist

These figures are historical observations from October 30, 2026, not current prices. Being listed does not mean that every project’s protocol or smart contracts were compromised.

1. FUNToken (FUN) Experienced a Major Liquidity Shock

FUNToken became one of the most notable examples of how selling pressure can affect a smaller cryptocurrency.

On October 30, FUN experienced a decline of more than 90% in an affected Uniswap trading pool. The price moved from approximately 0.0000037 WETH to 0.00000017 WETH during the reported selling activity.

According to CoinDesk’s investigation, a wallet associated with the attacker sold approximately 134.1 million FUN for 111.5 ETH, worth around $250,000 at the time.

The important detail was not just the number of tokens sold. The available liquidity in the affected FUN/WETH pool was extremely small.

CoinDesk reported that the pool held approximately $16,000 in combined liquidity when it examined the market.

Why Did FUN Drop So Sharply?

Decentralized exchanges often use liquidity pools instead of traditional order books.

A liquidity pool contains two assets that traders exchange against each other. When someone sells a large amount of one asset, the balance changes and the automated pricing mechanism adjusts the token’s price.

This creates a problem when a pool has limited liquidity.

For example, imagine a small pool containing $10,000 worth of a token and $10,000 worth of ETH. A large seller cannot necessarily sell millions of dollars of tokens at the displayed market price.

Each transaction changes the pool balance and can push the price lower.

This effect is known as slippage.

FUN demonstrated how a relatively small token market can experience an extreme price movement when a large seller enters a thin liquidity pool.

Is FUNToken Safe After the Crash?

A large price decline does not automatically mean a cryptocurrency project has stopped operating.

Investors should examine several separate factors:

• Whether the project’s development continues.
• Whether its token contracts remain functional.
• Whether centralized exchanges have restored normal deposits.
• Whether decentralized liquidity has recovered.
• Whether large token holders still have significant transferable balances.

FUNToken reportedly asked centralized exchanges to temporarily disable FUN deposits as a precaution. This was a protective response and should not be confused with a confirmed compromise of the FUN smart contract.

Investors should also remember that a price rebound after a crash does not prove that the selling risk has disappeared.

2. Prom (PROM) Faced a Significant Selling Risk

Prom (PROM) was another smaller cryptocurrency identified in reporting about the affected token holdings.

The main concern involved the size of the reported holdings compared with the token’s normal trading activity.

CoinDesk cited an analysis by The Tie’s Joshua Frank, which identified FUN and PROM as particularly exposed because the reported attacker holdings exceeded an entire day’s trading volume.

This comparison matters because trading volume helps explain how easily a market can absorb large transactions.

Why Does PROM Trading Volume Matter?

Imagine a cryptocurrency that normally trades $500,000 in a day.

If a large holder controls tokens worth several million dollars, selling the entire position quickly could overwhelm available buyers.

However, daily trading volume is not the same as available liquidity.

Some reported volume may come from different exchanges, trading pairs, or transactions that cannot absorb a large sale at the same price.

PROM holders should therefore examine:

• Trading volume across major exchanges.
• Liquidity on decentralized exchanges.
• Large wallet movements.
• Changes in exchange deposits and withdrawals.
• Official announcements from the project.

A large wallet balance alone does not prove that every token will be sold. The actual risk depends on whether the tokens move, where they move, and how much liquidity is available.

3. Reserve Rights (RSR) and Its Liquidity Response

Reserve Rights (RSR) attracted attention because of the large quantity of tokens associated with the incident.

Approximately 3.38 billion RSR tokens were reportedly involved in activity linked to the affected wallets, according to Reserve.

The project responded by temporarily withdrawing its own treasury-provided on-chain liquidity.

This decision was intended to reduce the chance that large amounts of affected RSR would be sold into liquidity supplied by the Reserve team.

Did the RSR Protocol Get Hacked?

No confirmed evidence showed that the Reserve protocol or its token contract had been compromised through this incident.

Reserve described the issue as an exchange custody problem rather than a vulnerability in the RSR token itself.

RSR also has an important technical characteristic: its token contract does not have an administrative key that allows the project to freeze the token.

This means Reserve cannot simply blacklist or freeze every RSR token held in an external wallet.

Reserve also reported that 3.38 billion RSR had been swapped through Uniswap for approximately 1,856 ETH.

However, blockchain attribution can be difficult when funds pass through multiple addresses. Reports about the final ownership and control of funds should be treated carefully.

What Should RSR Holders Watch?

RSR holders should monitor:

• Reserve’s official announcements.
• Changes in available RSR liquidity.
• Large transactions involving known wallets.
• Trading volume and price movements.
• The return of normal liquidity conditions.

A temporary withdrawal of project-provided liquidity does not automatically mean the entire Reserve ecosystem has stopped working.

4. RedStone (RED) Experienced Selling Pressure

RedStone is a blockchain oracle project that provides data infrastructure for decentralized applications.

Its RED token also appeared among the smaller assets affected by reported selling activity.

CoinDesk reported that RED declined approximately 17.1% over the 24-hour period covered by its October 30 market snapshot.

Why Does RedStone Matter to DeFi?

Blockchain applications often need reliable information from outside their own networks.

For example, lending protocols need asset prices to calculate collateral values and liquidation thresholds.

Oracle networks provide this type of information to smart contracts.

RedStone operates in this area of blockchain infrastructure.

Its involvement in the wider market reaction is important because investors should distinguish between a token’s market performance and the operation of the underlying infrastructure.

A decline in RED’s price does not prove that RedStone’s oracle services stopped working.

What Should RED Investors Monitor?

Investors should examine:

• Official RedStone security announcements.
• RED token liquidity.
• Large holder transactions.
• Exchange trading activity.
• Updates about the project’s oracle infrastructure.

The key question is whether the token’s market activity changes the project’s actual operations. These are separate issues and should not be treated as identical.

5. Gitcoin (GTC) Responded by Withdrawing Liquidity

Gitcoin is an open-source funding ecosystem that supports public goods and blockchain development.

Its GTC token also experienced selling pressure during the October market disruption.

However, Gitcoin’s response provides another important lesson about how crypto projects can protect their liquidity.

In an October 30 governance community update, Gitcoin explained that it had withdrawn liquidity from affected decentralized finance pools.

The team also monitored Tally and Snapshot for possible governance activity.

According to its update:

• Its treasury remained untouched.
• No unauthorized governance proposal was attempted or passed.
• Liquidity was withdrawn from affected pools.
• The project continued monitoring the situation.

The update also mentioned that Binance was arranging purchases of affected altcoins in matching amounts through exchange and over-the-counter channels, including GTC.

Did the Incident Affect Gitcoin’s Treasury?

Gitcoin’s community update stated that its treasury remained untouched.

This distinction is important because a token price decline does not necessarily mean a project’s treasury has lost funds.

GTC holders should follow the project’s governance forum and official announcements rather than relying only on market speculation.

6. Origin Protocol (OGN) Also Faced Market Pressure

Origin Protocol’s OGN token appeared in the list of smaller cryptocurrencies reportedly sold through decentralized exchanges.

CoinDesk reported that OGN was among the tokens experiencing declines of approximately 9% to 13.6% in the market snapshot covering several affected assets.

Investors should not assume that a price decline means Origin’s underlying products were compromised.

Token prices can react to large transfers, market uncertainty, lower liquidity, and selling pressure even when the project’s technology continues operating.

For OGN, the useful areas to monitor include:

• Official Origin Protocol announcements.
• OGN liquidity across exchanges.
• Large wallet transfers.
• Changes in trading volume.
• Whether reported selling activity continues.

7. YFI and 1INCH Experienced Additional Selling Activity

Two other established DeFi-related tokens appeared in the market coverage.

Yearn Finance (YFI)

Yearn Finance operates in the decentralized finance sector, with products focused on helping users access and manage DeFi strategies.

YFI was included among the tokens that experienced selling activity during the incident.

Investors should distinguish between market pressure on YFI and the security of Yearn’s individual products.

A token transfer does not automatically establish that the project’s vaults, smart contracts, or user deposits were compromised.

1inch (1INCH)

1inch is a decentralized exchange aggregator that searches across liquidity sources to find trading routes.

It appeared in two different parts of the incident’s broader market activity.

First, 1INCH was among the smaller tokens identified in reporting about selling pressure.

Second, 1inch’s infrastructure was mentioned in blockchain investigations tracking swaps involving affected assets.

This distinction matters. A decentralized exchange aggregator can be used to route transactions without being responsible for the origin of the assets being traded.

The involvement of a trading platform in a transaction does not prove that its own protocol was hacked.

8. UNI, LINK and AAVE Also Appeared in On-Chain Tracking

Additional decentralized finance tokens appeared in the transaction analysis published by Aave’s risk community.

These included:

• Uniswap (UNI)
• Chainlink (LINK)
• Aave (AAVE)

The investigation described how wallets associated with the exploiter sold tokens such as UNI, LINK, and AAVE for ETH through decentralized exchanges.

It also documented a lending transaction involving approximately 60 million USDT supplied to Aave V3 Ethereum Core, against which around 19,762 WETH was borrowed.

This is an important distinction for readers.

The presence of AAVE, LINK, or UNI in a transaction does not mean that their respective protocols were hacked.

It means the tokens appeared in the movement and exchange of assets associated with the incident.

Investors should evaluate each project’s security independently.

9. Why Are Smaller Altcoins More Vulnerable to Large Sell Orders?

One of the biggest lessons from this market event is that market capitalization alone cannot explain how easily a cryptocurrency can fall.

Liquidity plays a major role.

A token may have a large reported market capitalization but still have relatively limited liquidity on the trading pair where a large seller is operating.

Here are the main reasons smaller cryptocurrencies can experience sharp price movements.

Limited Liquidity

A small trading pool may not contain enough assets to absorb a large transaction without moving the price significantly.

High Concentration of Token Holdings

If a small number of wallets control a large portion of a token’s supply, their transactions can influence available market liquidity.

Low Trading Volume

Tokens with limited daily trading activity may struggle to attract enough buyers during periods of heavy selling.

Panic Selling

When investors see a sudden price decline, some may sell their holdings to avoid further losses.

This can increase selling pressure and make the original price movement worse.

Exchange Differences

A token may have deep liquidity on one exchange but limited liquidity on another.

A price crash on a single decentralized exchange does not always represent the same price movement across every market.

10. What Should Crypto Investors Check Before Buying an Affected Altcoin?

A sharp decline can attract investors who believe they are buying at a discount.

However, a lower price does not automatically make a token undervalued.

Before making a decision, examine the following factors.

Factor	What to investigate
Liquidity	How much can be traded without major slippage?
Trading volume	Is normal trading activity returning?
Token supply	Are large amounts concentrated in a few wallets?
Wallet activity	Are known large holders still transferring tokens?
Project response	Has the development team published an update?
Smart contracts	Is there evidence of a protocol vulnerability?
Exchange support	Are normal deposits and withdrawals available?
Market recovery	Is the price stabilizing across multiple exchanges?

Investors trading futures should also consider leverage and liquidation risk.

A volatile token can move against a position much faster than expected. A position-size calculation can help traders understand their exposure before opening a trade.

11. What Could Happen to These Altcoins Next?

The future performance of these cryptocurrencies depends on several factors.

First, the remaining transferable token balances matter. If large quantities enter the market, smaller liquidity pools may face further pressure.

Second, project responses can influence confidence. Clear communication about treasury safety, liquidity, and token contracts helps investors understand the actual situation.

Third, Binance’s arrangements to replace affected token balances may influence how these assets return to normal market conditions.

However, replacing token balances does not guarantee that every token will recover its previous price.

The broader crypto market also matters. Bitcoin and Ethereum movements, investor sentiment, and available liquidity can influence smaller altcoins.

For now, investors should avoid treating every affected token as a recovery opportunity.

Some projects may return to normal trading conditions quickly, while others may need more time to rebuild liquidity and confidence.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which altcoins were affected by the Binance incident?

Reported affected tokens included FUN, PROM, RSR, RED, GTC, OGN, YFI, 1INCH, SOPH, ERA, UNI, LINK, and AAVE. The type of involvement differed between tokens.

Why did FUNToken crash more than 90%?

FUN experienced extreme selling pressure in a relatively small Uniswap liquidity pool. The available liquidity could not absorb the large sales without a substantial price impact.

Was the Reserve Rights (RSR) token hacked?

There was no confirmed evidence that the RSR token contract or Reserve protocol was hacked. The reported incident involved tokens held through exchange infrastructure.

Did Gitcoin lose its treasury funds?

Gitcoin’s October 30 community update stated that its treasury remained untouched. The project also reported withdrawing liquidity from affected DeFi pools.

Was RedStone (RED) compromised?

A decline in RED’s market price does not establish a security breach. Investors should check official RedStone announcements for confirmed information about its infrastructure.

Why can a large crypto sale cause a major price crash?

Large sales can overwhelm available liquidity, especially in smaller trading pools. Automated market makers adjust prices as the balance of the pool changes.

Can an affected altcoin recover after a major price decline?

Yes, recovery is possible, but it is not guaranteed. Liquidity, investor demand, project development, token supply, and further selling activity all influence future prices.

Should investors buy altcoins after a major crash?

A price decline alone is not a reliable buying signal. Investors should examine liquidity, project updates, token distribution, and their own risk tolerance before making financial decisions.

Final Thoughts

The October 2026 market disruption showed how quickly selling pressure can spread from a major exchange incident into smaller cryptocurrency markets.

FUN demonstrated the danger of thin liquidity, while RSR and GTC showed how project teams can respond by withdrawing their own liquidity. RED, PROM, OGN, YFI, and 1INCH also deserve attention because their market activity illustrates the different risks that smaller and established DeFi tokens can face.

For investors, the main lesson is to look beyond price movements. A token’s market performance, liquidity, smart contract security, and project health are different factors.

Understanding these differences can help readers make better-informed decisions during periods of uncertainty in the cryptocurrency market.

Disclaimer

This article is for informational and educational purposes only. Cryptocurrency markets are volatile, and the information presented should not be considered financial or investment advice. Always verify project announcements and conduct independent research before making investment decisions.