On-chain investigator ZachXBT has raised serious questions about MemeCore. The project brands itself as a layer-1 for the “Meme 2.0 economy.” His allegation: insiders control more than 90% of its token supply. The project’s valuation sits somewhere between $4.3 billion and $6 billion. Nobody can agree which.
The allegations spotlight growing concerns about token concentration. And questionable distribution practices in the altcoin market.
According to data from Bubblemaps, the largest holder of MemeCore’s M token is a Binance deposit wallet. It controls 41.3% of the total supply. Another significant holder, wallet ‘0x8b8’, holds approximately 50 million M tokens. That’s roughly 21.77% of the supply.
The valuation picture remains murky. CoinMarketCap places MemeCore’s market cap near $4.3 billion. CoinGecko estimates it closer to $6 billion. These discrepancies have added fuel to scrutiny. Does the project’s reported value reflect genuine market activity? Or concentrated holdings that inflate perceived demand?
ZachXBT’s concerns emerge amid a broader investigation. He’s examining altcoins with similar concentration patterns. And suspicious price movements. The investigator has previously examined tokens like RAVE. It experienced a dramatic price collapse. That highlighted potential pump-and-dump schemes targeting retail investors.
Not everyone interprets the data as evidence of manipulation. “The clustering resembles team holdings not yet circulating, rather than clear manipulation,” said Bubblemaps analyst 0xToolman. He suggests the concentration might reflect undistributed team allocations. Not coordinated market manipulation.
The concentration of tokens in relatively few wallets raises fundamental questions. What’s the actual circulating supply? Do reported valuations accurately represent market liquidity? A small number of addresses control the vast majority of tokens. That makes price discovery difficult. The risk of coordinated selling increases substantially. Or artificial price inflation.
MemeCore’s situation reflects broader challenges. Cryptocurrency projects with opaque token distribution models face scrutiny. Investors often rely on market data aggregators for valuation information. But these platforms can only report what projects disclose. And what on-chain data reveals. Deposit wallets and unidentified addresses hold massive percentages of supply. Determining true market depth becomes nearly impossible.
The investigation underscores the importance of on-chain analysis. It verifies claims made by cryptocurrency projects. The market’s maturing. Scrutiny from independent investigators like ZachXBT plays a critical role. It identifies potential risks before retail investors face significant losses.
