Blockchain investigator ZachXBT has accused insiders behind the LAB token of controlling more than 95% of the project’s supply, raising fresh concerns about market manipulation and retail investor risk.
Key Takeaways
- ZachXBT claims insiders control over 95% of LAB token supply.
- The investigator linked LAB wallets, OTC deals, loans, and exchange activity to coordinated market behavior.
- Around 100 million LAB tokens worth over $480 million were reportedly withdrawn from Bitget by fresh wallets.
- The allegations have intensified concerns about centralized exchange driven token pumps and hidden token supply structures.
What Happened?
Onchain investigator ZachXBT published a detailed investigation alleging that the LAB token’s rapid rise to a multibillion dollar valuation may have been driven by insider coordination, opaque financing structures, and concentrated supply ownership.
The allegations center around LAB’s reported $6 billion fully diluted valuation, with ZachXBT warning that retail traders may not have a clear understanding of the project’s real circulating supply, token distribution, or unlock schedules.
1/ An investigation into the opaque private loans/OTC, unilateral vesting changes, market maker coordination, unknown float, and >95% supply control behind $LAB‘s recent pump to $6B FDV.
— ZachXBT (@zachxbt) May 14, 2026
Here’s why @LABtrade_ represents everything wrong with the current meta of retail extraction… pic.twitter.com/L2U5kW1EUd
ZachXBT Raises Concerns Over LAB Token Structure
According to ZachXBT, LAB insiders allegedly control more than 95% of the token supply. The investigator described the situation as an example of “everything wrong with the current meta of retail extraction on major centralized exchanges.”
The investigation traces LAB’s origins to founders Vova Sadkov and a co-founder identified as Mark. The project reportedly launched its token generation event in October 2025 and attracted backing from several major crypto firms and exchanges including OKX, Animoca, GSR, Gate, KuCoin, Mirana, Amber, and Lemniscap.
However, ZachXBT argued that publicly available data about LAB’s circulating supply remains inconsistent across major tracking platforms. CoinMarketCap, CoinGecko, RootData, and exchange listings reportedly display different figures, making it difficult for traders to accurately assess liquidity and potential sell pressure.
The investigator also pointed to earlier concerns involving Eesee, a previous project linked to the same founders, where some investors allegedly felt abandoned after the team shifted focus to LAB.
Private Loans and OTC Deals Draw Attention
One of the biggest concerns highlighted in the investigation involves LAB’s alleged private loan agreements and OTC token sales.
According to the report, a private loan contract tied to The Lab Management Ltd., a British Virgin Islands registered entity, offered a 7.5% monthly interest rate over six months. The agreement allegedly allowed repayment in LAB tokens at market price if the borrower defaulted.
ZachXBT claimed the same wallet associated with these loans was also linked to LAB’s public buyback activity and other borrowing transactions connected to Wildcat.
The investigation further alleged that OTC token deals were being offered at steep discounts. Earlier deals reportedly offered discounts of 60%, while newer KOL focused allocations allegedly reached discounts as high as 80%.
The report stated that some promotional agreements required influencers to post positive content about LAB before their tokens unlocked, or risk being blacklisted from allocations.
Exchange Activity and Market Maker Allegations
The controversy intensified after ZachXBT highlighted large token movements connected to Bitget.
Between March and April 2026, insiders allegedly deposited around 226 million LAB tokens into Bitget linked wallets. More recently, approximately 100 million LAB tokens worth nearly $482 million were reportedly withdrawn to ten fresh wallets.
ZachXBT suggested that an unknown market maker may have coordinated trading activity across Bitget, Binance, and Gate using a strategy similar to previous token cases involving RIVER, RAVE, SIREN, MYX, and SKYAI.
In a separate warning, ZachXBT described the LAB price chart as a potential “trap” for retail investors, arguing that heavily concentrated ownership and low liquidity can artificially maintain upward price momentum until insiders decide to exit positions.
The investigator also criticized what he called a “Chinese CEX cartel,” alleging that certain exchange linked operations have avoided accountability for years.
CoinLaw’s Takeaway
In my experience, stories like this expose one of the biggest problems in crypto markets today. Retail traders often focus on price action without fully understanding token ownership, liquidity, and unlock structures behind the scenes. I found the most concerning part of this case is not just the alleged insider control itself, but how difficult it appears for ordinary investors to verify basic supply data across platforms. If these allegations are proven true, it could become another major example of how centralized exchange listings and aggressive market making can create a dangerous illusion of organic demand.
