LAB team burns $11M – Can price survive 46M token unlock hitting next?

ambcrypto2026-07-10 tarihinde yayınlandı2026-07-10 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

The LAB token, after rebounding from under $1 to over $1 following a team burn of 10 million tokens worth $11.3 million, faces a critical test. Despite the short-term price recovery, trading volume declined, suggesting weak organic demand. A major concern is the imminent unlock of 46.3 million tokens from airdrop and investor allocations, valued at approximately $48.4 million. This potential supply influx could overwhelm the recent deflationary burn. Technical indicators like the MACD remain negative, highlighting bearish momentum. The price's ability to hold above $1 depends on whether sustained buying demand can absorb the upcoming token unlocks.

LAB rebounded from a low near $5.68 earlier in July and rallied to a high of $18.32. After reaching that level, the altcoin faced rejection and entered a steep decline.

The altcoin then recorded three consecutive lower daily closes and briefly fell below $1.

At press time, LAB traded around $1.17 after gaining roughly 25% over the past day. Market Cap also climbed about 25% to nearly $366 million.

However, the recovery came with an important caveat.

Trading Volume fell more than 40% despite the price rally, indicating buying activity weakened even as LAB recovered. That divergence suggested the rebound may not have been driven by broad market demand.

Why did LAB rebound?

AMBCrypto attributed the rebound to a deflationary move by the LAB team rather than stronger organic demand.

Source: Lookonchain

The team burned 10 million LAB, worth about $11.3 million, as the token remained under heavy selling pressure. Reducing the circulating supply appeared to ease immediate selling pressure and helped LAB recover above $1.

Historically, token burns have often supported short-term price recoveries. LAB appeared to follow the same pattern.

Can token burns offset upcoming unlocks?

Even so, the broader supply picture remained less encouraging.

Blockchain investigator ZachXBT previously claimed insiders controlled roughly 95% of the altcoin supply, giving a small group significant market influence.

Source: ZachXBT

ZachXBT also alleged that the borrower address linked to the LAB contract was used for token buybacks, suggesting the team managed buybacks, burns, and token sales.

However, larger supply increases may soon outweigh the recent burn.

According to Tokenomist, 14.8 million LAB, worth about $15.4 million, from the airdrop allocation will unlock soon.

Source: Tokenomist

Investor allocations will release another 31.5 million LAB, valued at roughly $33 million.

Together, 46.3 million LAB could enter circulation within days, potentially diluting the impact of the recent burn.

What’s next for the altcoin?

Despite the rebound, the broader trend remained bearish.

The MACD stayed deep in negative territory at -2.2, showing sellers continued to dominate momentum.

If buying interest weakens after the token burn, LAB could fall below $1 again. Conversely, sustained demand would be needed to absorb the upcoming token unlocks and keep the recovery intact.

Source: Tradingview

Final Summary

  • Burning tokens reduced pressure. Upcoming unlocks could restore it just as quickly.
  • LAB recovered above $1, but dilution risks remained difficult to ignore.

İlgili Sorular

QWhat caused the recent price rebound of the LAB token above $1, and why is it considered potentially weak?

AThe recent rebound above $1 was caused by the LAB team burning 10 million tokens (worth ~$11.3M) to reduce circulating supply and ease selling pressure. However, the recovery is considered potentially weak because trading volume fell over 40% during the price increase, indicating a lack of broad market demand and suggesting the move was driven by the team's deflationary action rather than organic buying interest.

QAccording to the article, what are the two major upcoming supply events that threaten to offset the impact of the token burn?

AAccording to the article, the two major upcoming supply events are: 1) An unlock of 14.8 million LAB (worth ~$15.4M) from the airdrop allocation. 2) An unlock of 31.5 million LAB (worth ~$33M) from investor allocations. Together, 46.3 million new tokens could enter circulation soon, potentially diluting the positive supply impact of the recent burn.

QWhat did blockchain investigator ZachXBT allege about the control of LAB's supply and the team's activities?

AZachXBT alleged that insiders control roughly 95% of the LAB token supply, giving a small group significant influence over the market. Furthermore, he alleged that a borrower address linked to the LAB contract was used for token buybacks, suggesting the team manages buybacks, burns, and token sales, raising concerns about centralization and market manipulation.

QWhat technical indicator is mentioned as evidence that the broader trend for LAB remains bearish despite the price rebound?

AThe Moving Average Convergence Divergence (MACD) indicator is mentioned as evidence. The article states that the MACD remained deep in negative territory at -2.2, indicating that sellers continued to dominate the momentum and the broader bearish trend was still intact.

QWhat are the two potential price scenarios for LAB mentioned in the article's conclusion?

AThe article outlines two potential scenarios: 1) If buying interest weakens following the token burn, the price of LAB could fall back below $1. 2) Conversely, sustained and significant market demand would be required to absorb the large volume of upcoming token unlocks and keep the recent price recovery intact.

İlgili Okumalar

Dialogue with Jia Hang | Looking Back at Two Decades of Chinese Payment Going Global

**Summary: A Conversation with Jia Hang on Two Decades of China's Payment Globalization** Jia Hang, a veteran with over twenty years in payments, reflects on China's attempts to build a global payment network through three key phases: UnionPay (card networks), Alipay+ (digital wallets), and now, stablecoins. His journey began at UnionPay International, aiming to establish China's card network abroad. While successful in following Chinese tourists ("where Chinese go, UnionPay goes"), it struggled to achieve true global scale. The core lesson: card networks like Visa/Mastercard's unassailable advantage isn't just technical standards, but their deeply entrenched **governance and profit-sharing models** that create powerful network effects. Competing as the "same species" is nearly impossible. At Ant Group, he led Alipay+, a strategy to bypass card networks by interconnecting local e-wallets worldwide. While innovative, it faced a similar ceiling. Mobile QR payments and card swipes were essentially **the same species competing for the same pie**, lacking a disruptive value proposition for users or a sustainable new incentive model to replace the card networks' established flywheel. Today, at Singapore's DCS, Jia focuses on stablecoin-based payments. He argues stablecoins represent a fundamental shift. They are not competing with Visa for consumer payments but challenging the **traditional banking and account system for value movement**. Products like "U Cards" (stablecoin-linked payment cards) are transitional, leveraging existing card networks for acceptance while building new rails. The real potential lies in stablecoins enabling seamless, low-cost global value transfer, potentially reorganizing the financial infrastructure around **accounts rather than cards**. Jia believes stablecoin adoption for local retail payments, cross-border transactions, and as high-yield savings vehicles is becoming irreversible. This could gradually reduce reliance on traditional fiat channels, especially in regions with weak currencies or capital controls. The quest for the "next global payment network" continues, now centered on whether stablecoins can successfully bridge Web2 and Web3, establish new governance, and create compelling user value beyond mere cost reduction.

marsbit4 dk önce

Dialogue with Jia Hang | Looking Back at Two Decades of Chinese Payment Going Global

marsbit4 dk önce

Circle's Stock Price Plunges 76%, Hong Kong Dollar Stablecoin Set to Launch Within Two Weeks

Circle's stock price has plunged approximately 76% from its 2023 peak, reflecting a major market revaluation. Despite this, Circle President Heath Tarbert emphasized the company's focus on long-term execution and its dominant position with USDC's $73 billion circulation across 34 blockchains. The competitive landscape is intensifying. A new consortium-backed stablecoin, Open USD, is attempting to challenge incumbents by sharing reserve yields with partners. More significantly, Visa's new stablecoin platform, initially supporting Open USD while also being compatible with USDC, could erode Circle's network effects. In response, Circle is expanding into real-world payments through partnerships like the one with Japan's JCB. Separately, Tether (USDT) faces a two-year compliance window under new U.S. regulations, requiring it to adjust its reserve composition away from assets like Bitcoin and loans towards cash and U.S. Treasuries. Meanwhile, in Hong Kong, Standard Chartered-backed fintech firm Dian Dian is poised to launch a licensed HKD-pegged stablecoin (HKDAP), moving the industry into a phase where the real test is integrating licensed stablecoins into actual payment flows and corporate treasury systems. The sharp decline in Circle's stock underscores a broader shift: the stablecoin market is moving from a winner-takes-all dynamic to a multi-player competitive arena where execution, compliance, and real-world utility are becoming paramount.

marsbit4 dk önce

Circle's Stock Price Plunges 76%, Hong Kong Dollar Stablecoin Set to Launch Within Two Weeks

marsbit4 dk önce

Amidst Capital's Encirclement, Decentralization is the Sole Defense for Public Blockchains

In a landscape dominated by power and profit motives, the author argues that decentralization is not merely one desirable feature among many in blockchain design—it is the singular, non-negotiable defense against corporate and capital capture. The article adopts a Machiavellian, realist perspective on human institutions, positing that businesses will inevitably attempt to co-opt any valuable network to protect their profits and dominance. While external attacks like 51% forks are often discussed, the greater existential risk is internal capture—the gradual erosion of a protocol’s neutrality by vested interests, as seen historically with platforms like Visa and Google. The piece critiques permissioned chains, highly centralized “permissionless” layer-1s, and layer-2s without sufficient decentralization (e.g., single sequencers) as inherently vulnerable. These compromised systems, promoted by established financial players, are framed as delaying tactics to stifle truly open networks that threaten existing high-fee, inefficient business models. Real-world examples, such as closed enterprise consortiums that exclude competitors, illustrate how such systems cement oligopolies rather than foster innovation. The author concludes that while decentralized protocols like Ethereum are imperfect and costly to operate, they represent the only viable long-term equilibrium. In a market where value naturally flows to the most secure and neutral settlement layer, only maximally decentralized public blockchains can resist being subsumed by capital and powerful incumbents.

Foresight News15 dk önce

Amidst Capital's Encirclement, Decentralization is the Sole Defense for Public Blockchains

Foresight News15 dk önce

Who Decides the Rules of Bitcoin? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

Bitcoin's governance is once again at the center of a heated debate, this time ignited by BIP-110, the "Reduced Data Temporary Softfork." This proposal aims to curb non-monetary data (like inscriptions and Runes) by introducing seven new consensus-layer restrictions over a year, such as limiting new output scripts to 34 bytes and restoring the OP_RETURN cap to 83 bytes. The controversy stems from BIP-110's fundamental shift: it moves the battle against "spam" from node relay and miner policies to the consensus layer, rendering currently valid transactions invalid. Supporters, arguing that default policy governance has failed (highlighted by Bitcoin Core v30's relaxation of OP_RETURN limits), see this as necessary to protect node resources and Bitcoin's monetary focus. Opponents, led by figures like Michael Saylor and Adam Back, warn it dangerously centralizes governance. Saylor listed 110 reasons against it, criticizing its low 55% miner activation threshold and potential for chain splits. Back emphasized Bitcoin's "permissionless" ethos, arguing no single group should impose value judgments via consensus rules. Further complicating matters, technical critiques suggest BIP-110 may be technically circumventable, and a "BlockSlop" vulnerability in its upgrade path poses a consensus risk. The debate has drawn in diverse stakeholders: miners (with pools like Ocean signaling support and Foundry polling clients), node operators (like Bitcoin Knots), and new players like corporate treasury holder MicroStrategy (Saylor), whose market influence adds a novel dimension. Ultimately, BIP-110 acts as a governance stress test, exposing the unresolved question: who decides Bitcoin's rules? It pits the authority of miners, node operators, developers, and capital holders against each other, with each side claiming to defend Bitcoin's core principles of neutrality and security.

marsbit31 dk önce

Who Decides the Rules of Bitcoin? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

marsbit31 dk önce

Who Decides Bitcoin's Rules? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

Title: Who Decides Bitcoin's Rules? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate A new technical proposal, BIP-110 (Reduced Data Temporary Softfork), has sparked a fundamental governance debate within the Bitcoin community. It aims to impose new consensus rules for one year to limit non-financial data (like inscriptions and Runes) on-chain, moving beyond simple node and miner policy filters to invalidate currently valid transactions. Supporters argue that default policies have failed due to workarounds, necessitating consensus-layer changes to protect Bitcoin's core monetary function from data spam. Critics, including Michael Saylor and Adam Back, contend this dangerously centralizes judgment, undermines permissionlessness, and sets a risky governance precedent. They advocate for market-based solutions like fees or Layer 2s instead. The debate exposes deeper tensions: miners are divided on activation; node operators assert their sovereignty; Bitcoin Core developers influence defaults without direct accountability; and large corporate holders like MicroStrategy now wield narrative influence. Technically, BIP-110 may not fully block data and carries a disclosed consensus bug risk. Ultimately, BIP-110 acts as a stress test, forcing the community to confront the unresolved question: who legitimately decides what Bitcoin is and how it evolves, amidst competing claims from miners, nodes, developers, and capital holders.

链捕手43 dk önce

Who Decides Bitcoin's Rules? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

链捕手43 dk önce

İşlemler

Spot
活动图片