Sahara AI Responds to SAHARA’s Sharp Drop: No Contract or Product Security Issues Found, Internal Investigation Underway

On June 9, according to TechFlow citing official sources, Sahara AI responded to the abnormal price movement of the SAHARA token, which reportedly fell by around 60% within 24 hours. The team said it is monitoring market developments in real time and has not identified any security issues related to the token contract or product infrastructure. Sahara AI also confirmed that it has launched an internal investigation to determine the cause of the volatility and will release further updates when available.

The key point in the statement is that the project team has, at least for now, ruled out the type of risk that usually triggers the strongest market reaction: a smart contract exploit, product breach, front-end attack, or other direct security incident. However, Sahara AI has not yet disclosed more detailed findings, including whether the sell-off was related to concentrated selling by large wallets, changes in liquidity, market-making adjustments, token unlock pressure, or order book depth on centralized exchanges.

As a result, the available information remains limited to “no confirmed security abnormality.” It does not yet explain why SAHARA experienced such a sharp pullback in a short period of time.

There are also several earlier events that may help provide context for the market structure around SAHARA. Public data previously showed that the token had unlock schedules of around 72.4 million SAHARA in both April and May. On May 25, on-chain monitoring also reported that two addresses withdrew roughly 111 million SAHARA from Binance and Bitget, representing about 3.4% of the circulating supply. At the time, this came just three days after the project announced the launch of staking.

These details may offer background for understanding possible supply and liquidity changes, but there is currently no evidence proving a direct causal link between those events and the latest price drop.

For traders, the more important question is not simply whether the project says there was “no security issue,” but whether it can later provide verifiable explanations at both the on-chain and trading levels. Without more specific investigation results, market concerns around selling pressure, token distribution, and liquidity stability are unlikely to fade quickly.

Why It Matters

This type of update matters because it helps the market assess the nature of the risk. If the decline were caused by a security incident, the impact could quickly spread to custody, deposits and withdrawals, trading pair liquidity, and broader trust in the project. If it was not a security incident, the focus shifts to more typical secondary-market factors, such as token unlocks, market-making behavior, concentrated holdings, OTC transfers, or forced selling in thin liquidity conditions.

For small- and mid-cap tokens, a project statement ruling out contract or product security issues can ease part of the panic, but it does not replace a clear explanation of token flows and trading behavior. Whether this was a short-term liquidity imbalance or the beginning of a broader supply-side repricing remains unclear and will depend on further disclosure.

WEEX View

The core market debate has already shifted from “Was SAHARA hacked?” to “Who is selling, where is the selling happening, and who is absorbing the liquidity?”

If there is no security issue, the market is likely to focus on three things next. First, whether Sahara AI discloses the scope of its internal investigation, especially whether it includes market makers, foundation wallets, early investors, or related addresses. Second, whether CEX order book depth shows signs of recovery, including bid-ask spreads, order book thickness, and the source of aggressive sell pressure. Third, whether abnormal transfer activity between on-chain wallets and exchanges becomes visible.

For front-line trading businesses, these factors determine whether SAHARA’s move was mainly a sentiment-driven flash crash or whether a deeper token distribution adjustment has already started.

The more practical conflict of interest is also clear. The project team wants to stabilize the narrative around “not a security incident.” Exchanges care more about whether abnormal accounts, concentrated sell orders, or liquidity gaps were involved. Market makers and large holders, meanwhile, will reassess the cost of continuing to provide depth.

If the follow-up investigation does not include wallet-level or time-specific data, order book confidence may be difficult to restore quickly. Arbitrage capital could also reduce exposure, making rebound liquidity appear available on the surface while real buying support remains weak.

The next signals worth watching are not just project statements, but concrete evidence: exchange notices, explanations for large on-chain transfers, disclosure of token unlock flows, and visible recovery in market-making depth.

Timeline

• 2026-04-19: RootData reported that around 72.4 million SAHARA tokens were expected to unlock on April 26.
• 2026-05-19: RootData again reported that around 72.4 million SAHARA tokens were expected to unlock on May 26.
• 2026-05-25: On-chain monitoring showed that two addresses withdrew approximately 111 million SAHARA from Binance and Bitget, accounting for about 3.4% of the circulating supply. This came three days after the project launched staking.
• 2026-06-09: SAHARA fell by around 60% within 24 hours. Sahara AI said it had found no security issues with the token contract or product infrastructure and had launched an internal investigation.