The $LAB token was trading at $6.37 on May 14, 2026. Up 994% in 30 days per CoinGecko. Fully diluted valuation above $6.3 billion. Total supply is 1 billion tokens. Circulating supply at time of publication: roughly 76.5 million.
Those two numbers together, 76.5 million circulating against 1 billion total, tell you most of what you need to know before reading a single allegation. A market cap to FDV ratio of 0.08 means 92% of total supply has not entered the market yet. That supply is somewhere. ZachXBT spent a nine-part thread on May 14, 2026 showing exactly where.
LAB token price chart on CoinGecko: $6.37, up 994.4% over 30 days, FDV $6.365 billion, circulating supply 76.5 million against 1 billion total supply. Source: CoinGecko, May 14, 2026.
The investigation documents coordinated insider supply control, private loan agreements with a BVI shell entity, undisclosed OTC deals circulated over WhatsApp and Telegram, a KOL blacklist tied to token unlocks, and on-chain links to the RIVER token manipulation. As ZachXBT posted on X in the opening of his thread:
“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. Here’s why @LABtrade_ represents everything wrong with the current meta of retail extraction on major centralized exchanges.” — As ZachXBT posted on X, thread part 1 [source]
This is not a price prediction. This is what the paper trail shows.
LAB market data: FDV $5.406 billion, circulating supply 309 million, total supply 1 billion, market cap to FDV ratio 0.08, launched October 2025. Team listed: Mark X as co-founder and CBDO. Source: CoinMarketCap / RootData, May 2026.
The Loan Contract With Sadkov’s Name On It
A draft loan agreement from Q1 2026 names The Lab Management Ltd. as the borrower. Registered in the British Virgin Islands at Quijano Chambers, P.O. Box 3159, Road Town, Tortola. The director and signatory is Vladimir Sadkov, co-founder of LAB.
The rate is 7.5% per month over six months. Interest starts one month after the effective date. The loan amount is paid in USDT to wallet address 0xf09C19328C26088053a8c9CfB982427bafF2Bd0b on the ERC-20 network. That wallet address appears again in a different context shortly after.
Loan Agreement page 1: The Lab Management Ltd. as borrower, Vladimir Sadkov as Director, BVI registration at Quijano Chambers, Road Town, Tortola. Source: ZachXBT investigation, May 14, 2026.
Loan Agreement page 2: 7.5% monthly interest over 6 months, USDT payment method, ERC-20 wallet address 0xf09C19328C26088053a8c9CfB982427bafF2Bd0b. Borrower may use loan amount for any lawful business purpose at sole discretion. Source: ZachXBT investigation.
The default clause is the part worth reading slowly. If The Lab Management Ltd. fails to repay, the borrower must transfer LAB tokens to the creditor at market price on the date of transfer. The project’s own token is the fallback asset for its own debt obligations. A default event pushes LAB supply directly into creditor hands.
Loan Agreement page 3: Default clause requiring LAB token transfer at market price if repayment fails. Early return mechanics allow partial repayment from 3 months before repayment date. Source: ZachXBT investigation.
Loan Agreement signature page: Vladimir Sadkov, Director, The Lab Management Ltd., Tortola British Virgin Islands, dated 2026. Source: ZachXBT investigation, May 14, 2026.
“One of several loan contracts offered privately: 7.5%/month for 6 months. Borrower is a BVI shell, The Lab Management Ltd., signed by Vladimir (Vova) Sadkov as director. On default, repayment is in LAB (the native token) at market price.” — As ZachXBT posted on X, thread part 4 [source]
An unnamed source confirmed to ZachXBT that interest payments were made under terms similar to this draft. The borrower wallet, 0xf09C19328C26088053a8c9CfB982427bafF2Bd0b, is the same wallet used for public LAB buybacks. It also connects onchain to 0x3185, a borrower address on Wildcat, a separate lending protocol.
Funds from LAB activity then reached what ZachXBT identified as Sadkov’s personal exchange accounts. Bybit deposit address 0x2f7fd9678bd7d89da6a4ffd7d612d919ea813e30. Gate deposit address 0x3b5341b94dee91ec1a84470463a411c0ab5ed70c. Both had previously received deposits tied to Eesee, the founders’ earlier project, linked to Sadkov’s ENS and NFT holdings. Full wallet tracing in thread part 5.
“It’s strange to see personal and business funds commingling like this.” — As ZachXBT posted on X, thread part 5 [source]
Personal and business funds. Same wallets. That is the onchain record, not inference.
Telegram message from Vova Sadkov: seed round at $17M FDV raising $2.3M, backers include Lemniscap, OKX, Animoca, GSR, Gate, KuCoin, Mirana. Private round at $25M FDV. Legion raise $1.5M described as 10x oversubscribed. Exchange list: Gate, Bitget, KuCoin, Kraken. Source: ZachXBT investigation.
Several of those backers, Lemniscap, OKX, Gate, KuCoin, are also exchanges where $LAB now trades. The people who funded the project and the platforms listing it overlap. Per ZachXBT’s thread part 2, Coingecko, RootData, and CoinMarketCap all report different circulating floats for LAB, and the LAB documentation itself provides zero breakdown of token distribution.
Vesting Changed. Nobody Voted.
Legion public sale participants were promised a three-month cliff with eight months of linear vesting, fully unlocked at month eleven from TGE. The LAB team changed those terms unilaterally. The cliff moved to nine months. Linear vesting extended to six months after that. Full unlock pushed to month fifteen.
Updated LAB Token Vesting Terms: original 3-month cliff plus 8-month linear vest changed to 9-month cliff plus 6-month linear vest, fully unlocked at month 15 from TGE. Applied uniformly to all private purchasers. Source: LAB team communication, ZachXBT investigation.
No governance vote. No public announcement. No negotiation. Users found out through an email.
As ZachXBT documented in thread part 3, the LAB team unilaterally changed Legion public sale terms from a 3-month cliff to a 9-month cliff. An email screenshot from a Legion user confirmed the change. Other creators reported waiting months for marketing campaign payouts without any clarification from the team.
Tiger’s Diary, known on X as @tigerweb3riji, was among those who publicly documented what happened. The post was translated from Chinese and reached a wide audience on crypto Twitter.
Tiger’s Diary (@tigerweb3riji) post on X: $LAB team described as unilaterally changing vesting from 3-month cliff plus 8-month release to 9-month cliff plus 6-month release without vote or announcement. Addresses @LABtrade_ and @legiondotcc directly. Source: X, May 2026.
“Your $LAB project team was all sweet talk back then, patting your chests and promising ‘3-month lock, 8-month linear release,’ and now today you just flip the rules on a dime. One sentence, and you’ve tacked on an extra half-year lock for no reason. You think my money grows on trees? Or that your project’s word is the damn law?” — As Tiger’s Diary (@tigerweb3riji) posted on X [source]
This is not a new pattern for the same founders. Simon Dedic, crypto investor, posted on X on May 10, 2026 that he personally wrote an angel check into Eesee, the founders’ prior project. He watched vesting terms change right before TGE there too. The Eesee chart he included shows a near-total collapse: down 93.2% from its all-time high.
Simon Dedic (@sjdedic) post on X, May 10, 2026: advises selling $LAB, cites same founders abandoned $ESE after changing vesting terms pre-TGE. Side-by-side CoinGecko charts show LAB’s pump versus ESE’s 93.2% collapse from all-time high. Source: X.
“I have zero doubts that $LAB is a giga scam in the making. Hope at least a few people read this and take profit before it’s too late and they massively get burnt.” — As Simon Dedic (@sjdedic) posted on X, May 10, 2026 [source]
The ESE chart Dedic included tells its own story: down 93.2% from its all-time high at time of posting. Same team. Same playbook. Different token ticker.
Creator campaign payouts were not delivered either. As 0xSamir (@0x_Samir) posted on X on May 2, 2026, he had been waiting over six months for the remaining 60% of his vested LAB tokens from a campaign run through cookie.fun. Multiple dates given. None honored.
Top: 0xSamir (@0x_Samir) on X, May 2, 2026, reporting 60% of vested $LAB tokens unpaid after 6 months from a cookie.fun campaign. Bottom: El3na (@lilbratel3na) on X, May 3, 2026, stating @LABtrade_ and @cookiedotfun still owe creators 70% of airdrop allocations from completed campaigns. Source: X.
As El3na (@lilbratel3na) posted on X on May 3, 2026, both @LABtrade_ and @cookiedotfun still owed creators 70% of their airdrop allocations from campaigns already closed. Her framing: she could not believe they had been scammed by both the platform and the project.
The OTC Menu Retail Never Saw
LAB co-founder Mark was posting in a public Telegram group in January 2026. The group was FOUNDER APP Buy/Sell Traffic, 841 members. His message was direct: Binance perps listed project, open for OTC deals, DM who is interested.
Telegram screenshot, FOUNDER APP Buy/Sell Traffic group, January 6: Mark X posting that a Binance perps listed project is open for OTC deals and requesting interested parties to DM. Source: ZachXBT investigation.
A separate Telegram conversation shows Mark identifying himself as co-founder and CBDO of $LAB. He shared a CoinMarketCap link and offered a 60% discount OTC deal with a two-month cliff and two months of vesting. When asked if the FDV was $1 billion, he confirmed $2 billion. The other party responded: ‘its too much bro.’ Mark replied: ‘Can ask for bigger discount if any interest.’
Telegram chat: Mark X identifies as LAB co-founder and CBDO, offers 60% OTC discount with 2-month cliff and 2-month vesting, shares CoinMarketCap link, FDV confirmed at $2 billion. Source: ZachXBT investigation.
A WhatsApp message circulated separately with a full deal menu. Stablecoin loans at 5% per month. Classic OTC at 60% discount with a five-month cliff ending July 14 and three months vesting. Guaranteed OTC at 25% discount recalculated monthly, described internally as 33% profit in six months. A 20% guaranteed tranche paying out across days 61, 91, and 121 for a 300k investment.
WhatsApp OTC deal menu: stablecoin loans at 5% monthly, classic OTC at 60% discount with 5-month cliff ending July 14, guaranteed OTC at 25% discount recalculated monthly, 20% guaranteed tranche with payment schedule example for a 300k investment. Source: ZachXBT investigation.
“Mark (co-founder) openly solicited OTC buyers in a public Telegram group. Other individuals received a menu over WhatsApp: loans at 5%/month, OTC at 60% discount with 5-month cliff, guaranteed discount OTC at 25% recalculated monthly, and a 20% guaranteed discount tranche.” — As ZachXBT posted on X, thread part 6 [source]
By May, the discount had widened to 80%. KOL Capital circulated a pitch offering $LAB at $1 per token. 50% unlocking August 14. 50% unlocking September 15. At $6.37 per token, an 80% discount entry at $1 represents a potential 537% unrealized gain sitting in wallets that are not retail.
KOL Capital pitch: 80% discount OTC deal for $LAB at $1 per token, 50% unlock August 14, 50% September 15. Requires minimum 2 posts per month supporting LAB and 8 total posts before unlock. Failure results in blacklisting from future deals. All posting activity tracked for compliance. Source: ZachXBT investigation.
The posting requirement was written into the deal terms. Recipients had to publish a minimum of two posts per month in support of LAB, totaling eight posts before the unlock. Fail to post: blacklisted from future deals. All activity tracked for compliance.
That is how coordinated promotional content gets produced at scale. Not organically. Through financial contracts tied to token unlocks. The retail holder watching a KOL post about $LAB could not know whether that post was genuine or a contractual deliverable.
Every one of those OTC rounds built supply unlocks that never appeared in any public token schedule. As price climbed, the discounts available to insiders widened. The people who entered at 60%, 70%, 80% off are profitable at nearly any price retail is currently paying.
226 Million Tokens, One Exchange, Ten Wallets
Between March and April 2026, insiders deposited 226 million LAB to Bitget deposit addresses. The tokens did not move. They sat dormant. Then on May 11 and 12, nearly 100 million LAB worth roughly $482 million moved out to ten receiving wallets in two days.
ZachXBT published every address in thread part 8. The Bitget deposit addresses that received those original tokens included 46M LAB at 0x6593aa6c, 50M at 0xdd77bfbd, 60M at 0xe39f91a0, 40M at 0x77156a0a, and 30M at 0xd425c56f.
“226M LAB (large % of float) was deposited to Bitget deposit addresses by insiders in March-April 2026. The deposits sat dormant until 100M LAB was withdrawn a few days ago, which received significant coverage on CT.” — As ZachXBT posted on X, thread part 8 [source]
One signer across multiple LAB team multisigs, address 0xcEA722a1A812EbDFA5BBD8130531cF1D1956eBC9, was funded by an insider connected onchain to the RIVER token manipulation. That insider received over $12 million in RIVER tokens sent to two CEX deposit addresses. Full wallet tracing documented by ZachXBT in thread part 7.
Arkham on-chain data: RIVER token transfers to Bitget deposit address 0x5F0 from multiple wallets, February to March 2026, ranging from $265K to $1.46M per transaction. Lower section: LAB Signer 0xCEA executing transactions to LAB Team Multisig addresses, with 0.01 BNB transfer incoming from RIVER Insider 0x8391. Source: ZachXBT investigation.
“One of the signers for several LAB team multisigs was funded by an insider linked onchain to RIVER manipulation. The same insider received $12M+ of RIVER tokens to two CEX deposit addresses.” — As ZachXBT posted on X, thread part 7 [source]
ZachXBT identified a consistent pattern across multiple tokens: RIVER, RAVE, SIREN, MYX, SKYAI, and LAB all run what he described as a similar playbook. Majority of spot activity originates on Bitget. Binance perps and Gate handle additional flow. The same coordinating entities appear across several of them.
Since the TGE, ZachXBT found only a handful of non-insider transfers above $150,000 across all LAB on-chain activity. Out of billions in reported trading volume, that data point is the onchain basis for the 95% insider supply control estimate.
“Across LAB since TGE, there have been only a handful of non-insider transfers greater than $150K. This supports my greater than 95% insider control estimate from earlier.” — As ZachXBT posted on X, thread part 8 [source]
What ZachXBT Is Asking Exchanges to Do
ZachXBT closed the thread with a direct request to Bitget, Binance, and Gate: freeze insider profits and redistribute them to users, or delist the token before public pressure forces the outcome. He posted a $10,000 bounty for additional intel and confirmed paying $1,500 out of his own pocket.
“Call to action for @bitgetglobal, @binance, @gate_io to freeze insider profits and redistribute them to users. Or delist and act earlier without waiting for public pressure. I put out a $10K bounty for intel earlier and have paid $1.5K so far out of my own pocket.” — As ZachXBT posted on X, thread part 9 [source]
He also flagged a specific structural risk for anyone considering shorting LAB. With insiders holding over 95% of supply, concentrated holders can push prices higher against short positions at will. ZachXBT explicitly stated this is not a recommendation to short. The concentration is the point: insiders hold the fuel to move the price in any direction they choose.
ZachXBT also noted that after his previous similar investigations, more than ten Chinese KOLs replied with scripted responses. He expects the same here. Those responses, he wrote, likely came from people who have token allocations, are paid to post, or received airdrops. The full thread starting at part 1 documents the complete chain of evidence.
The Broader Picture for Retail Holders
The LAB investigation is not unique as a story type. What makes it notable is how thoroughly the evidence was assembled. Loan contracts. Wallet addresses. Fundraising messages from Vova Sadkov’s own Telegram. OTC menus sent over WhatsApp. A KOL pitch with a written blacklist clause. Arkham data showing the RIVER wallet connection.
Retail traders holding $LAB on Bitget, Binance, or Gate today are looking at the same price chart. They cannot see the full OTC supply sitting in wallets that entered at 60% to 80% discounts and are waiting on cliff dates in August and September. They cannot see which KOLs posted because they wanted to and which posted because a contract required it.
The people with complete visibility into LAB’s supply structure are the team, the backers, the OTC buyers, and the market makers. Everyone else is reading a price chart and calling it information. That is what ZachXBT spent a thread proving, with documents.
Whether Bitget, Binance, or Gate take action remains to be seen. ZachXBT’s track record on investigations like this is publicly documented. The thread on RIVER, RAVE, and similar tokens preceded significant price dislocations in each case. The LAB investigation follows the same structural evidence pattern. The August and September unlock dates are on the calendar. What happens between now and then is the open question.
