The weekend brought another high-volatility shakeout in crypto. CoinDesk description says the LAB token “soared by around 500% in two days” to a market cap bump of nearly $260 million, then triggered cascading liquidations as short sellers reportedly lost about $26.6 million.
That surge did not last. The same source says LAB later tumbled 84% and “costing over $250 million in value, in an eight hour period between 00:47 and 08:31 UTC.” It adds that this drop liquidated roughly $17 million in long positions.
Tokenomics and control concerns
nCritics focus on LAB’s supply distribution. The source text says a “large percentage of LAB’s total token supply” remains with the development team, creating a scenario where “price movements can be disproportionately swayed” by a small group.
The described theory is familiar but serious. The text argues that concentrated ownership can constrict circulating liquidity, making modest buying pressure push prices sharply higher. It also claims this can create a “mirage of strong demand,” pulling in more participants while insiders retain control over the supply and timing.
The source also points to the pattern of “exorbitant” moves, rising to all-time highs and then “crash[ing] sharply later on,” framing that sequence as evidence that some of the price path may have been orchestrated rather than purely organic.
Alleged “manipulation playbook”
The narrative in the source text lays out a step-by-step scenario. It starts with limiting circulating supply so the token becomes “overresponsive to small buying pressure.” Next comes a “manufactured price pump,” followed by short-seller behavior.
According to the provided description, the pump coincides with funding rates turning below zero, which the text says creates paradoxical upward pressure. It claims shorts get squeezed as the rally continues, then the squeeze cascades as more shorts enter and liquidate. It further says retail tends to buy near the top, while insiders eventually dump and may add short positions to profit from the fall.
This is presented as a concern and a suspected mechanism, not proof. Still, the source ties the extreme volatility to a broader question from the crypto community in its own words, whether such “price flipping is natural or evidence of strategic suppression.”
price flipping is natural or evidence of strategic suppression.
Exchange listings under scrutiny
The weekend event triggered scrutiny from on-chain trading communities. The source text cites a “widely circulated message” from Evening Traders that asked why major exchanges were still listing tokens showing “extremely high volatility and signs of market manipulation.”
The same passage says Evening Traders pointed to MYX and AIA as examples with shared features, arguing that these tokens are “better positioned to capitalize on the deep liquidity pools held by major exchanges.” It also suggests those pools let large trades execute with “minimal immediate impact.”
The excerpt ends mid-sentence at “Platforms like Binanc,” so it does not fully detail any exchange-specific response or additional evidence.