ZachXBT has intensified his campaign against alleged market manipulation in smaller cryptocurrency projects, this time targeting the AI trading terminal project LAB and its founder, Vova Sadkov.
On Thursday, ZachXBT announced a $10,000 bounty for information related to what he described as a coordinated pump-and-dump operation involving the LAB token across several centralized exchanges.
“$10K bounty is now live on @vsadkovv passport/ID or insider details of the market maker (contracts, chat logs, etc) used for LAB on Bitget spot, Bybit perps Binance perps, or OKX perps,” ZachXBT wrote on X. “These grifters are further hurting the industry reputation and it must not go unpunished. War time mode.”
The allegations center around large deposits of LAB tokens to exchanges including Binance, Bybit, Bitget and OKX ahead of a major price surge earlier this month.
According to ZachXBT and other onchain analysts, wallets allegedly linked to the LAB team moved tens of millions of dollars worth of tokens onto exchanges prior to the rally. The claims suggest the deposits may have been part of a broader strategy to create liquidity and capitalize on speculative trading activity.
Another blockchain analyst known as Specter also pointed to wallet activity allegedly connected to the LAB team or Sadkov. Specter cited gas fee relationships and transaction patterns that he claims link wallets involved in LAB trading activity to other controversial token projects, including SkyAI.
ZachXBT stated that he initially attempted to contact the LAB team privately before escalating the issue publicly.
He also publicly criticized Gracy Chen, accusing exchanges of profiting from fees generated by allegedly manipulated trading activity.
“CEXs need to freeze MM profits / distribute to users (victims) when these games happen,” ZachXBT wrote. “Should not rely on people calling it out.”
The Block reported that it contacted Sadkov, Chen and Bitget for comment.
Growing Focus on Small-Cap Token Activity
The LAB allegations are part of a broader trend in which ZachXBT has increasingly targeted relatively small cryptocurrency projects that exhibit unusually aggressive price movements and questionable token distribution patterns.
Last month, he publicly criticized the price action surrounding the RAVE token after it surged dramatically before collapsing by more than 95%. He also highlighted several other projects that he described as displaying “highly questionable price action,” including SIREN, MYX, COAI, M, PIPPIN and RIVER.
The incidents have renewed debate around the role of centralized exchanges in monitoring token listings, market maker behavior and abnormal trading activity.
“Exchanges need faster intervention on manipulation,” ZachXBT wrote in April. “Detection at scale isn’t easy, but each day of delay means retail traders absorb losses while platforms collect fees on the volume. The outcome is the same regardless of intent.”
Pressure Mounts on Exchanges
The latest allegations place additional pressure on centralized exchanges as regulators and market participants continue scrutinizing token listing standards and market surveillance practices.
While exchanges typically rely on internal monitoring systems to detect suspicious trading patterns, critics argue that low-liquidity tokens remain vulnerable to manipulation schemes involving concentrated supply, coordinated market making and leveraged perpetual futures activity.
The issue has become more pronounced as smaller tokens increasingly gain exposure through perpetual futures listings on major trading venues, allowing speculative activity to scale rapidly even when underlying spot market liquidity remains limited.
Neither LAB nor the exchanges named in the allegations have publicly confirmed any evidence of manipulation at the time of writing.
Analysis: LAB Allegations Show How Small Tokens Are Turning Into Fee Farms for Exchanges and Market Makers
This is starting to become a pattern.
Not a random one-off. Not “crypto being crypto.” A repeatable structure.
Small token launches.
Aggressive exchange listings.
Perpetual futures almost immediately.
Massive price expansion.
Then a slow-motion massacre once liquidity dries up.
And now ZachXBT is basically declaring open war on it.
The phrase he used — “war time mode” — sounds dramatic until you look at the mechanics underneath these moves. Then it starts making sense.
Because what he’s describing isn’t just volatility.
It’s industrialized extraction.
The LAB Setup Looks Familiar
When I looked through the allegations around LAB, the first thing that stood out wasn’t the token itself.
It was the exchange flow timing.
That’s always where the smell starts.
According to ZachXBT and Specter, wallets allegedly tied to the LAB team moved massive amounts of tokens onto exchanges before the major pump. Not after. Before.
That matters.
Because deposits ahead of a vertical move completely change the interpretation of the rally. It stops looking like organic discovery and starts looking like inventory preparation.
That’s a different game entirely.
The Perps Listing Problem Nobody Wants to Address
Here’s the uncomfortable reality.
Perpetual futures listings have become gasoline for low-float tokens.
Especially on smaller projects.
You get:
- Thin spot liquidity
- Leveraged futures exposure
- Aggressive social media marketing
- Market makers controlling spread and depth
That combination is lethal for retail traders.
One coordinated push can send a token flying 300% to 500% in hours. Then leveraged longs pile in. Funding spikes. Momentum accounts start posting screenshots.
That’s when distribution begins.
I’ve watched this exact cycle happen repeatedly this year.
Different ticker every week. Same skeleton underneath.
Exchanges Collect Fees Either Way
This is the part ZachXBT is forcing people to talk about.
Exchanges make money regardless of outcome.
If a token pumps violently, volume explodes.
If traders get liquidated, volume explodes again.
If volatility spikes, even better.
So the incentive structure gets messy fast.
I’m not saying exchanges are coordinating manipulation. There’s no evidence of that here.
But the current setup absolutely rewards fast-moving speculative products with questionable liquidity foundations.
That’s just reality.
“Detection Isn’t Easy” — True, But Not the Whole Story
ZachXBT said exchanges need faster intervention.
He’s right.
But here’s the thing: most of these patterns are visible early if you actually care about the structure.
You can see:
- Wallet concentration
- Abnormal exchange deposits
- Synthetic liquidity behavior
- Suspicious market maker activity
- Identical launch patterns across multiple tokens
The problem isn’t that the signs are invisible.
The problem is that intervention kills volume.
And volume is the business.
The Wallet Links Matter More Than People Think
Specter’s comments about gas fee connections are important.
Most retail traders ignore that stuff because it sounds technical. It isn’t.
Gas relationships often expose operational overlap between wallets that are supposed to appear unrelated.
Same funding sources.
Same movement timing.
Same transaction patterns.
It’s one of the fastest ways onchain investigators start mapping clusters.
If those allegations hold up, then the LAB situation gets much uglier.
Because then the issue isn’t just suspicious price action.
It becomes potential coordination.
Small Tokens Have Become Attention Machines
This market rewards chaos now.
Not fundamentals.
A slow-building legitimate protocol barely trends. Meanwhile a low-float token with aggressive perp listings can dominate crypto Twitter in hours.
That creates a dangerous incentive loop.
Projects realize attention matters more than sustainability.
Exchanges realize volatility drives engagement.
Traders chase momentum because everyone else is doing it.
And suddenly the entire ecosystem starts optimizing for the pump instead of durability.
The RAVE Comparison Isn’t Accidental
Notice how quickly ZachXBT moved from RAVE to LAB.
That’s not random.
He’s seeing recurring patterns.
Concentrated supply.
Questionable flows.
Violent expansion.
Retail destruction afterward.
Once you start recognizing the structure, you see it everywhere.
SIREN.
MYX.
COAI.
PIPPIN.
RIVER.
The tickers change faster than the mechanics do.
Crypto’s Reputation Problem Is Getting Worse Again
This is the irony.
The industry spent two years trying to recover credibility after the 2022 collapse cycle.
Now we’re drifting back toward the same behavior patterns again — just dressed differently.
Less “yield farming.”
More “AI terminals.”
More “community ecosystems.”
More “next-generation infrastructure.”
Different wrapper.
Same reflexes underneath.
Fast speculation still dominates everything.
I Think The Exchange Pressure Is Only Starting
What happens next probably matters more than LAB itself.
Because if exchanges start freezing market maker profits or clawing back suspicious gains — like ZachXBT suggested — the entire small-cap ecosystem changes overnight.
A lot of these tokens depend on aggressive liquidity engineering to survive early trading.
Remove that flexibility, and many launches suddenly stop working.
That’s why this fight matters.
It’s not just about one project.
It’s about whether crypto exchanges are marketplaces… or volatility factories.
What I’d Watch Next
Not the token price.
That’s noise now.
I’d watch:
- Whether exchanges release investigation findings
- Whether linked wallets continue moving funds
- Whether market makers connected to these projects appear repeatedly across launches
- Whether regulators start paying attention to perp-driven manipulation structures
Because once regulators start connecting leveraged futures activity with low-float token launches, the conversation changes fast.
And honestly? I think we’re getting close to that point.
The Real Problem
Retail traders still think these are “early opportunities.”
A lot of them aren’t.
They’re late-stage liquidity events disguised as discovery phases.
That’s the brutal part.
By the time most people hear about these tokens, the positioning is already done.
Everything after that is just distribution choreography.
Disclaimer
This article is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, trading, or legal advice. Cryptocurrencies, memecoins, and prediction-market positions are highly speculative and involve significant risk, including the potential loss of all capital.
The analysis presented reflects the author’s opinion at the time of writing and is based on publicly available information, on-chain data, and market observations, which may change without notice. No representation or warranty is made regarding accuracy, completeness, or future performance.
Readers are solely responsible for their investment decisions and should conduct their own independent research and consult a qualified financial professional before engaging in any trading or betting activity. The author and publisher hold no responsibility for any financial losses incurred.