Crypto markets seldom offer clarity during a collapse, and that’s precisely what makes the recent XRP plunge on Binance such a magnet for controversy. Across the digital asset community, voices, led by developer and commentator Vincent Van Code, are now accusing one of crypto’s most prominent exchanges of orchestrating a price suppression campaign.
The question is no longer whether the drop was sharp—it’s whether it was natural.
The Crash and Its Context
On October 10–11, the cryptocurrency market experienced high volatility. Bitcoin and Ethereum both tumbled dramatically, triggered in part by macro uncertainty (notably a surprise announcement of a 100% tariff on Chinese imports).
XRP followed the descent, collapsing by double‑digit percentages across exchanges. On Binance in particular, the fall was steep and chaotic—liquidity evaporated, stop‑losses snapped, and order books glowed red. Some data watchers even recorded an intraday bottom near $1.54, before a partial bounce.
That extreme move erased billions in market value and forced hundreds of millions in leveraged positions into liquidation. In that environment, any subtle or overt imbalance of selling pressure can have outsized effects. Thus, the very real fear is that this was not simply a panic‑driven drop—but something more calculated.
Vincent Van Code’s Charge: “Pure Manipulation”
In a post on X, Vincent Van Code asserted bluntly: “Make no mistake, XRP price tank on Binance is pure manipulation.” That statement has galvanized speculation and forensic inquiry into whether Binance was actively complicit in the crash.
Make no mistake, XRP price tank on Binance is pure manipulation.
— Vincent Van Code (@vincent_vancode) October 10, 2025
Van Code has long warned about algorithmic distortions in the XRP market, arguing that high‑frequency bots operating via prioritized exchange APIs often “nudge” prices in predetermined directions. In past commentary, he’s pointed to coincident rises in unrelated tokens during XRP news events as signs of cross‑asset bot interventions.
To prove manipulation, one must link motive, mechanism, and execution. Critics highlight three features here: concentrated sell pressure emerging during low‑liquidity windows (weekend hours), aggressive order cancellations and spread widening, and repeated timing of drops that coincide with positive XRP developments—only to see the price bludgeoned on Binance while other venues hold steadier.
Those patterns, illuminated by traders and on‑chain watchers alike, lend circumstantial weight to Van Code’s accusation.
Counterpoint: The Cascade Hypothesis
Binance and various analysts propose a different reading: this was not intentional suppression, but a violent liquidity cascade. In their view, macro shock (the tariff announcement), razor‑thin weekend depth, and over‑leveraged positions aligned to produce a classic waterfall effect.
We are on X, follow us to connect with us :- @TimesTabloid1
— TimesTabloid (@TimesTabloid1) June 15, 2025
As traders were forced to sell, the selling intensified, and liquidity providers pulled back, creating a cycle that worsened the situation. The differential in severity across exchanges is then attributed to local order‑book fragility rather than deliberate interference.
That said, the line between “cascade” and “manipulated cascade” is blurry. A cascade magnifies impact, but if the initial trigger is placement of outsized sell orders timed to exploit thin windows, it leans into manipulation.
What Remains to Be Proven and Done
At this stage, no public audit or independent ledger‑level review has definitively confirmed Binance’s involvement in engineered suppressions. The narrative remains split between two competing interpretations: one of orchestrated intervention (as Van Code claims) and one of chaotic market stress.
To move forward, there’s a need for transparency at the transaction level, including order logs, trade data with timestamps, and wallet flow records, to identify unusual patterns or potential manipulation.
What’s clear is that this episode reveals a weakness in the crypto market’s structure. When exchanges dominate trading and their systems aren’t transparent, big players can influence market stress.
If community demands hold, calls for better auditability, on‑chain matching, or even decentralized alternatives (such as the XRPL DEX) may gain new urgency.
Vincent Van Code’s dramatic framing—“pure manipulation”—serves as more than provocation. It is, for many, a demand for accountability and clarity. Whether that demand yields prosecution, consequence, or reform remains to be seen. But for a market built on transparency, silence is no longer sufficient.
Disclaimer: This content is meant to inform and should not be considered financial advice. The views expressed in this article may include the author’s personal opinions and do not represent Times Tabloid’s opinion. Readers are urged to do in‑depth research before making any investment decisions. Any action taken by the reader is strictly at their own risk. Times Tabloid is not responsible for any financial losses.