At the hottest moment of the narrative, LAB was brought under scrutiny. Cryptocurrency detective ZachXBT recently released an investigative report accusing insiders within LAB of potentially controlling over 95% of the token supply, and claiming that approximately 226 million LAB tokens were concentrated in a certain exchange to support sell pressure or liquidity (these accusations are currently based on a single source). On one side, the fully diluted valuation (FDV) has been driven up to a dazzling figure of approximately $6 billion due to sentiment and narrative, while on the other, there is a suspicious trajectory of a highly concentrated on-chain address and a huge amount of chips moving silently. The contrast between soaring valuations and the doubts about supply structure has caused many participants to rethink the risk premium of this token. A larger shadow looms from a macro perspective: on May 14, 2026, Israeli Defense Minister Katz publicly stated that Israel's mission in Iran is not yet complete and may take action again in the near future; immediately following that, Iranian Vice President Reza Aref emphasized that Iran will never lose the Strait of Hormuz, no matter the cost. This global energy transport route has once again been thrust into the limelight, and amidst the dual assaults of escalating geopolitical tensions and suspicions of on-chain manipulation, the market's confidence in high-valuation tokens has been forced to return to its most rational side.

FDV Rising to $6 Billion: The Shiny Exterior of LAB

Before the risk aversion sentiment brought on by the Middle East situation could fully spread, LAB stood in the spotlight. This new token, co-founded by Vova Sadkov and Mark, recently saw its FDV estimated by a single source near $6 billion, with labels filled with "high growth" and "new story"; both retail and institutional investors are willing to treat it as the next narrative sample. On the surface, LAB's valuation has benchmarked against top projects, and every market rally feels like a live roadshow for this new brand.

However, beneath this shiny facade, ZachXBT's investigation puts another picture on the table—according to its single source, insiders within LAB might control over 95% of the token supply and had concentrated about 226 million LAB tokens in a certain exchange to provide liquidity or support selling pressure. If the truly freely tradable circulation is just a small piece, then the price resembles being pushed back and forth on a narrow track: a small amount of buying can raise the market cap number, and a small amount of selling pressure is enough to break the order book. The tension between soaring valuations and extreme supply concentration is thus presented to all participants, indicating that LAB's market price is not only highly sensitive to macro sentiment but also deeply reliant on the movements and release rhythms of internal chips.

ZachXBT Tracking: The Fog of Private Loans and Buybacks

On top of this highly concentrated chip structure, ZachXBT zoomed in on those invisible trading arrangements. According to him, LAB has a series of private loans and over-the-counter transactions that were not fully disclosed to the market: certain wallet addresses appear on-chain as borrowers but were tracked by him participating in "public" buyback operations of LAB tokens. If this is true, then what was packaged as market-driven buybacks might essentially just be internal funds moving between different accounts, blurring the lines between borrowers, project parties, and so-called external investors. More critically, these loan and buyback arrangements lack clear contracts and disclosure, and the relevant on-chain addresses are claimed to be associated with insiders, making it nearly impossible for external participants to determine whether they are facing natural buying or a "self-buying and selling" led by the same batch of chips.

Surrounding the same batch of addresses, ZachXBT also pointed out the variability at the regulatory level. He accused the LAB team of unilaterally modifying token ownership clauses while coordinating with market makers, yet the disclosed circulation information varied inconsistently, creating confusion. If ownership can be rewritten in the background and market-making rhythm is linked to internal releases, while the so-called "circulating market cap" is just based on ambiguous numbers, then any price signal has lost its reliable reference frame. Currently, this information still mainly comes from ZachXBT's report, lacking a systematic response from the project party and no third-party verification, but just the picture presented by the accusations is enough to shake a core premise: whether investors can still believe they are buying into a token market with stable rules and clear supply boundaries.

From ESE to LAB: The Shadow of Old Projects Reappears

Before ZachXBT pointed the finger at LAB, the names Vova Sadkov and Mark were already tied to another project—Eesee (token ESE). Earlier, some investors involved in ESE publicly expressed dissatisfaction, believing that project advancement and rights fulfillment deviated from initial expectations, with some even stating they felt "abandoned." Although these statements mainly came from a single perspective, they left questions in the community regarding the team's commitment and execution. When the same core figures pivoted to launch LAB and quickly gained popularity in narrative and packaging, this old issue that had not been thoroughly resolved and clarified hung over them like an unresolved accounts receivable.

More subtly, the focal point of questioning ESE in the past—information disclosure and investor relations—has now been seen as "familiar" to many old faces at LAB. Before this wave of controversy emerged, the LAB team did not actively disclose clear details about token distribution and constraints but allowed the market to imagine supply structure under the high FDV narrative, echoing the communication methods remembered by some ESE participants. When ZachXBT directly names the continuity of the LAB team with ESE, layering old reputation with new accusations, the market's skepticism towards LAB is no longer just an isolated "information asymmetry" incident, but is interpreted as a potential path dependency that may repeat itself. This historical shadow is the most difficult to quantify yet heaviest risk premium in LAB's current pricing.

Israeli-Iranian Confrontation: The Tension in Hormuz Intensifies

Just as the market reassesses the "historical shadow" of LAB, signals from the Middle East further push the entire risk curve downward. Around May 14, 2026, Israeli Defense Minister Katz publicly stated that Israel's mission in Iran is "not yet complete" and may take action again in the near future to achieve its goals in Iran. Subsequently, Iranian Vice President Reza Aref made an even more resolute statement: Iran will never lose the Strait of Hormuz, no matter the cost. When one side emphasizes "the mission is not over," while the other states "at any cost," the Strait of Hormuz, an important global energy transport route, instantly transforms from a narrow waterway on the map into a huge exclamation mark in the minds of macro traders; its safety is again used as a key metric for assessing geopolitical risk.

Escalating geopolitical tensions usually suppress global risk appetite, and risk assets like stocks and cryptocurrency are likely to feel pressure on valuations and volatility simultaneously. For a market already highly sensitive to LAB's token distribution transparency, supply concentration, and team history, this macro-level uncertainty feels like an extra hammer pressing down on the emotion curve: in the context of ever-increasing tension in Hormuz, the high FDV and high controversy LAB naturally falls into a basket of assets that are "easier to sell off," which are prioritized targets for liquidation during capital withdrawals, and serve as an outlet for investors to vent their dual distrust towards the macro and the project.

After the Collapse of Trust: The Path for High FDV Narratives

This incident surrounding LAB directly tore apart the most vulnerable part of high FDV projects: when the valuation was pushed to around $6 billion in a short time (according to a single source), yet was questioned by on-chain detectives about insiders potentially controlling over 90% of the supply, and the existence of hidden loans and over-the-counter arrangements (according to a single source), the so-called "growth story" instantaneously devolved into a trust gamble concerning distribution and rules. ZachXBT's report, community denunciations, and the amplified distrust surrounding the residual controversies of ESE, combined with escalating tensions in the Middle East and repeated mentions of the risks in Hormuz, constitute a new pricing scene: on-chain evidence, public sentiment, and geopolitical risks simultaneously press the "recalculate" button for risk premiums, with high FDV projects no longer priced merely based on narrative and TVL but subjected to more rigorous dismantling of their supply structure and governance credibility. For investors, the signals that need to be scrutinized when participating in similar assets have surfaced: who actually holds the majority of circulating chips, whether there are mechanisms to artificially regulate selling pressure through lending, buybacks, or over-the-counter agreements, whether the team's performance record in earlier projects like ESE is a plus or minus, and in an environment where statements between Israel and Iran are continuously escalating and global risk appetite is contracting, whether such high FDV and high concentration tokens can withstand the next round of macro fluctuations—these will determine whether the high FDV narrative can continue to be treated as an asset by the market and not a short-term illusion that can be discarded at any moment.

Join our community, let's discuss together and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。