Fresh onchain data has pushed the LAB token back into the spotlight after blockchain watchers identified a major withdrawal event from crypto exchange Bitget. According to monitoring shared by Lookonchain, 10 newly created wallets withdrew a combined 100 million LAB tokens over a 12-hour period. At the quoted valuation, the transfer was worth about $480 million and accounted for roughly 32.26% of LAB’s circulating supply.
The size and timing of the movement immediately drew attention because it followed an earlier period of extreme volatility in LAB. Large transfers involving such a meaningful share of circulating supply are not typical in normal market conditions, particularly when they involve fresh addresses and occur after a sharp price expansion. While the withdrawals alone do not prove wrongdoing, they add another layer of evidence to an already active debate around whether LAB’s recent market behavior was organic or coordinated.
A Massive Withdrawal After a Violent Price Surge
The latest onchain activity came after LAB posted one of the more dramatic token moves seen this year. Earlier in May, around May 2, the token climbed from roughly $0.70 to nearly $3.30 within days, a move of more than 350%. At the peak of the rally, 24-hour trading volume reached $147 million, a figure that amplified interest in the token but also raised questions about who was driving the activity and whether the demand was genuine.
Rapid price appreciation on its own is not unusual in crypto markets, especially for relatively illiquid assets. However, when such moves are followed or preceded by very large transfers tied to concentrated holdings, analysts often begin looking for signs of strategic positioning. In LAB’s case, the new withdrawal data arrived after prior allegations that wallets connected to the project had moved large amounts of tokens to centralized exchanges before the rally began.
ZachXBT’s Earlier Claims Set the Context
Blockchain investigator ZachXBT had previously argued that wallets linked to the LAB team transferred approximately 96 million LAB, valued at around $63 million at the time, into Bitget before the token surged. His interpretation was that the transfers resembled the kind of pre-positioning that can occur ahead of a coordinated pump, where inventory is placed onto an exchange before a sudden wave of buying activity.
ZachXBT went further by publicly accusing LAB founder Vova Sadkov, known online as vsadkovv, of coordinating manipulation across multiple venues. To support a deeper investigation, he posted a $10,000 bounty for anyone able to provide concrete evidence, including contracts, internal chat logs, or insider documents related to LAB’s market-making activity. The request specifically referenced trading activity on Bitget spot as well as Bybit perpetuals, Binance perpetuals, and OKX perpetuals.
These allegations remain allegations unless supported by verifiable documents or confirmed enforcement action. Still, the combination of pre-rally deposits, explosive price behavior, and post-rally withdrawals by fresh wallets has created a pattern that many market observers believe warrants close scrutiny.
The Pattern Analysts Say They Have Seen Before
According to the report, the LAB movements resemble a playbook onchain analysts have identified in previous suspected manipulation cases. In that framework, project insiders or affiliated parties first move a large block of tokens onto a centralized exchange. A price rally then develops, sometimes accompanied by heavy activity in perpetual futures markets that can help squeeze short positions and accelerate upside momentum.
Once momentum traders and retail buyers enter the market, the original holders may look to exit while prices remain elevated. That exit can happen through spot selling or through over-the-counter channels designed to reduce visible pressure on public order books. In this context, the withdrawal of 100 million LAB into 10 fresh wallets is being interpreted by some analysts as potentially part of a coordinated inventory rotation rather than ordinary treasury management.
The concern is not just the movement itself, but the apparent cycling of large token quantities in and out of exchange infrastructure. Such circulation can, in theory, support wash-trading narratives, liquidity signaling, or attempts to shape market perception. None of that is established as fact solely from transfer records, but the pattern has become a central element of the ongoing debate around LAB.
Earlier Deposit Data Adds to the Suspicion
Historical onchain records cited in the report add more context. At an earlier stage, a wallet suspected of being associated with the LAB team reportedly sent 100 million LAB to three Bitget deposit addresses. At that time, the amount represented around 43.4% of the token’s circulating supply. When that earlier deposit is considered alongside the new withdrawal event, a broader picture emerges of very large token balances moving deliberately through centralized platforms.
For market participants, that raises obvious questions. If a substantial fraction of circulating supply can be repositioned through a small number of linked actions, then price discovery may be more fragile than traders assume. It also increases the risk that sudden rallies or selloffs are being amplified by concentrated holders rather than broad-based market participation.
What the Market Should Watch Next
At this stage, the publicly available evidence consists mainly of onchain tracking, timing analysis, and open accusations from independent investigators. That means caution is still necessary. Large transfers can have multiple explanations, and fresh wallets do not automatically indicate malicious intent. Even so, the LAB case has become notable because several red flags are appearing at once: a sharp price spike, large pre-rally exchange deposits, post-rally withdrawals into newly created wallets, and direct allegations aimed at the founder and related market-making operations.
The next phase of the story will likely depend on whether stronger evidence surfaces. That could include documentation tied to market-making arrangements, clearer attribution of the wallets involved, formal responses from the project or exchanges, or additional transfer activity that confirms or weakens the current theory. For now, what is clear is that the movement of 100 million LAB worth about $480 million has intensified concerns around how the token trades and who may control a significant portion of its liquid supply.
Until more evidence emerges, the LAB episode stands as a reminder of how quickly price action, exchange flows, and onchain forensics can converge into a broader market integrity question in crypto. Traders, exchanges, and investigators will now be watching closely to see whether this was simply an unusually large treasury movement or a sign of deeper coordination behind one of the market’s most eye-catching token rallies.