A cryptocurrency wallet attributed to the Binance hacker completed a token swap that converted a position valued near $5 million into a negligible amount of Ether. The transaction involved 908,793 PROM tokens routed through a Uniswap V2 liquidity pool that held almost no opposing assets, producing an execution that left the seller with just 0.0316 ETH, valued at approximately $71.

Transaction Details and Slippage Impact

Blockchain analytics firm Lookonchain identified the wallet and reported the figures on November 1, 2026. The PROM tokens carried a reported market value of about $5 million at the time of the sale. In return, the pool delivered 0.0316 Ether. The disparity between the stated token value and the actual proceeds represented a loss approaching 99.999 percent of the position’s reported worth.

Uniswap V2 pools set prices according to the relative balances of assets they contain. When liquidity is extremely thin, a large sell order drives the execution price sharply lower. In this case, the near-empty pool had insufficient ETH available to absorb the size of the PROM sale, resulting in severe slippage that reduced the payout to a fraction of the tokens’ nominal value.

Context of Broader Altcoin Sales

The PROM transaction formed part of a wider pattern of altcoin disposals by the same wallet. Lookonchain’s attribution linked the address to the Binance hacker, and the figures were also circulated by a verified Binance account. The sale illustrates a practical distinction between a token’s reported market valuation and the amount a specific liquidity pool can deliver when depth is absent.

Market participants monitoring on-chain activity noted that the outcome depended entirely on the pool’s residual balances rather than any external price feed. The episode adds to a series of observed liquidations in which large positions met limited counterparties on decentralized exchanges, producing outsized execution gaps.

Mechanics of Thin Liquidity

Decentralized exchange pools rely on constant-product formulas that adjust prices continuously as trades occur. A sale of nearly one million tokens against a pool holding negligible ETH necessarily exhausts available reserves and forces the price toward zero for the remaining units. The resulting 0.0316 ETH receipt demonstrates how pool composition, rather than headline token prices, determines the final proceeds of such trades.

No additional details on subsequent movements of the received Ether or residual PROM holdings have been disclosed in the available reports. The transaction remains a clear example of the risks attached to executing large orders in low-liquidity environments on automated market makers.