Ten newly created wallets withdrew 100 million LAB tokens from Bitget within a 12-hour period, according to onchain data highlighted by Lookonchain. At the time of the transfers, the holdings were valued at approximately $480 million, representing 32.26% of LAB’s circulating supply. The scale, speed, and coordination of the movement have added new momentum to an already active debate around whether LAB’s recent market activity reflects natural demand or organized manipulation.
The withdrawals came after a highly volatile stretch for the token. Earlier in May, LAB experienced a sharp price rally that drew attention across crypto trading circles. Market data cited in the source material shows the token climbed from roughly $0.70 to nearly $3.30 in just a matter of days, a move of more than 350%. At the height of that run, LAB’s 24-hour trading volume reached $147 million, indicating a rapid increase in market participation and liquidity.
Price surge put LAB under immediate scrutiny
That rally did not go unnoticed by blockchain investigator ZachXBT, who had already been examining suspicious exchange-linked activity. Based on onchain evidence referenced in the report, wallets allegedly connected to the LAB team moved about 96 million LAB, worth around $63 million at the time, into Bitget before the token’s dramatic appreciation. For market observers, the timing of those transfers raised obvious questions: whether large holders had positioned inventory on an exchange in advance of a coordinated upward move.
Such behavior, if proven, would fit a pattern often discussed in crypto market surveillance. Large token holders or affiliated entities can place substantial balances onto centralized exchanges before a major price event. A sudden rise in spot buying, combined with aggressive positioning in perpetual futures markets, can amplify the move by forcing short sellers to cover. Once momentum traders and retail buyers enter, early holders may then unwind positions while market enthusiasm remains elevated.
In LAB’s case, the latest withdrawals have intensified the focus on this sequence. Analysts are now looking not just at the initial deposits into exchanges, but at the full cycle of token movement: deposits before the rally, rapid price appreciation, and then concentrated withdrawals by fresh wallets after the move. That combination is one reason the story has gained traction well beyond LAB’s immediate trading community.
Fresh withdrawals deepen concerns over token cycling
Lookonchain’s observation centered on the fact that the withdrawing addresses were newly created wallets. The use of fresh addresses is not, by itself, proof of wrongdoing. However, when a relatively small number of wallets remove a massive share of a token’s float in a compressed time frame, analysts typically pay close attention. In this case, the movement involved nearly a third of LAB’s circulating supply, making it difficult for the market to dismiss as routine treasury management or ordinary user withdrawals.
The source report also points to earlier onchain data showing that a suspected LAB team-linked address sent 100 million LAB to three Bitget deposit addresses. At that time, the amount represented roughly 43.4% of the token’s circulating supply. When combined with the newer withdrawal event, a picture emerges of tokens moving in and out of centralized venues in large, deliberate tranches. For critics, that pattern may be consistent with attempts to support wash trading, engineer liquidity optics, or coordinate market-making behavior around periods of aggressive price action.
Whether that interpretation ultimately proves accurate will depend on evidence beyond transfer records alone. Onchain data can reveal timing, wallet relationships, and exchange flows, but proving intent typically requires additional documentation such as internal communications, agreements, or identifiable trading instructions. Even so, the current wallet activity has given investigators and market participants a substantial set of signals to examine more closely.
ZachXBT publicly escalates the investigation
ZachXBT has gone further than simply raising questions. According to the report, he accused LAB founder Vova Sadkov, known online as vsadkovv, of coordinating manipulation across multiple trading venues. He also offered a $10,000 bounty for concrete evidence related to LAB’s market-making activity. The requested materials include contracts, chat logs, or insider documents linked to activity on Bitget spot, Bybit perpetuals, Binance perpetuals, and OKX perpetuals.
The public nature of that bounty is notable because it turns a market debate into a more direct call for documentary proof. It also signals that some investigators believe the issue may extend beyond one isolated exchange or one unusual trading session. If supporting evidence emerges, the discussion could widen from suspicious token flows to broader questions about exchange oversight, market-maker conduct, and the enforcement of fair trading standards across centralized crypto venues.
The report also situates the LAB case within a larger investigation by ZachXBT into exchange-linked manipulation, including scrutiny tied to the RAVE token episode and public pressure on Bitget leadership to respond to allegations of market-maker abuse. That broader context matters because it suggests LAB is not being viewed as a standalone anomaly, but as part of a recurring structural concern in crypto markets: the difficulty of detecting and policing coordinated behavior that spans spot markets, derivatives platforms, and internally connected wallets.
Why investors are watching the supply concentration closely
For traders and investors, one of the most important data points is not only the dollar value of the transfers, but their relationship to circulating supply. When 32.26% of a token’s circulating supply is withdrawn by just ten fresh wallets, concentration risk becomes impossible to ignore. Even if the transfers were not intended for immediate sale, such ownership clustering can influence liquidity, price stability, and market confidence.
Large supply movements can also affect the market in multiple ways. They may reduce visible exchange balances, creating the appearance of tightening supply. They may shift liquidity into over-the-counter channels, where large sales can happen away from public order books. Or they may simply prepare for future redeployment, either back into exchanges or into other wallets that obscure attribution. Each of these possibilities carries implications for price discovery and transparency.
At the same time, caution is warranted. The current allegations remain grounded primarily in onchain interpretation and public accusation, not in a formal adjudicated finding. No definitive ruling has established wrongdoing based solely on the facts outlined in the source material. Still, the combination of a steep rally, pre-rally exchange deposits, subsequent mass withdrawals, and public claims by a well-known investigator has created a powerful narrative that the market is unlikely to ignore.
For now, LAB stands as a high-profile example of how quickly tokenomics, exchange flows, and speculative trading can become intertwined. As traders digest the latest wallet movements, attention is likely to remain fixed on whether more evidence surfaces, whether the project responds in detail, and whether exchanges linked to the trading activity provide further clarity. Until then, the LAB episode will continue to serve as a case study in how onchain transparency can spotlight patterns that centralized market structure often leaves difficult to explain.