AXIS Falls About 40% as ZachXBT Alleges Insider Sales

What the figures actually describe

There are several different measurements in the alert. The more-than-76-million AXIS figure describes tokens allegedly received from the team multisig. The 42-million AXIS figure describes one alleged insider's DEX sales. The more-than-5.04-million USDC figure describes the balances ZachXBT associated with that seller across eight wallets. Readers should retain those labels when comparing the numbers; they refer to different stages in his account of the transactions. Odaily's account.

All five figures above come from the same original alert. PANews and Odaily reproduce its central numbers. Their coverage makes the allegation accessible in different languages, but their agreement does not amount to a separate reconstruction of the wallets or an independent price observation. The original post remains the source for both the selling account and the reported decline.

The alert also says AXIS went live on October 21, 2026. That puts the launch eight calendar days before the October 29 post, calculated from the two stated dates. It gives readers a reference point for reviewing the launch allocation and subsequent transfers. The post does not supply a complete vesting schedule, all recipients' identities or the full terms under which the tokens were distributed.

DEX sales and Bitget transfers need different evidence

ZachXBT's post describes two routes: market selling through DEXs and AXIS transfers to Bitget. A reader assessing the allegation should keep a separate record for each route. The reported DEX sales concern completed disposals as described by the investigator. The exchange transfers concern a destination. The alert does not provide an exchange trade history showing what happened after those deposits.

For the DEX route, useful follow-up evidence would identify the transaction, the amount of AXIS exchanged and the asset received. For the exchange route, useful evidence would connect the deposit to a subsequent execution. Those are different questions. A wallet movement can be relevant to a selling investigation without establishing every later action taken with the tokens.

Bitget's appearance in the report therefore establishes only the reported destination in ZachXBT's account. This article has not verified a currently available AXIS market, a particular product, deposit availability or regional access on Bitget. If you already use Bitget, compare the asset and network in your own account with the report before deciding whether to keep, amend or cancel an existing order. The Bitget profile provides a separate starting point for venue research; it does not validate this allegation.

ZachXBT links the reported selling to the decline. Readers can attribute that explanation to him while recognizing what a fuller causal assessment would require: a timed record of the sales alongside a market-price series over the same interval. The opened material gives the investigator's conclusion and reported numbers. It does not quantify how much of the decline came from each wallet or from other sellers.

SponsoredBitget

Partner rebate share60%Up to

Check regional eligibility and account terms

→Enter the code when you sign up: nexu888

Sign up on Bitget →Codenexu888Copied

Why the USDC balance is not a complete profit calculation

The more-than-5.04-million USDC balance is one of the most concrete figures in the alert, but it answers a narrower question than a complete trading account. ZachXBT says the seller currently holds that amount across eight wallets after selling 42 million AXIS. He does not present an acquisition-cost schedule in the written alert. A reader cannot calculate the holder's net profit from those figures alone.

Do not use the quoted USDC holdings as an exact average execution price either. Both the balance and the wider allocation carry “more than” qualifications, and the post does not give a transaction-by-transaction reconciliation of the starting and ending balances. An average obtained by dividing the displayed balance by the token total would introduce a precision the source has not supplied.

The same issue applies to the more-than-$12-million valuation of the more-than-76-million-token allocation. That is a reported valuation, not a promise that the entire allocation could have been sold for that sum. The short alert does not identify a single valuation timestamp or publish realized proceeds for every recipient. Preserve the source's wording rather than recasting the valuation as money already collected.

For holders trying to assess remaining supply, the unanswered question is how much of the allocation remains in the relevant wallets. The 42-million-token sale does not resolve that for every recipient. Treating it as a subtraction from the broader distribution would require a reconciled list of the wallets, receipts and onward transactions, including any overlap. The written reports do not provide that reconciliation.

What this means for you

For someone with an AXIS order or position, a practical response begins with the original trading instruction. Record which asset and product the order covers, the quantity and the conditions you selected. Compare that instruction with the new allegation. Decide whether you still want the same exposure before changing an order because of a headline.

1. Open your existing AXIS order or position record and check the ticker, product and quantity against your original instruction.
2. Compare the order's price conditions with a current, timestamped quote from the market you actually use before deciding to keep, amend or cancel it.

Those are checks for an existing account, not a claim that a named venue currently offers AXIS. The source reports a token sale on Base and a transfer destination. It does not verify every exchange screen a reader may encounter. If a market is absent from your account, do not interpret the news report as proof that it should be present.

If you intend to transfer an existing holding, inspect the receiving network and asset details before starting. The alert's mention of Base concerns the reported DEX sales. It does not establish the network supported by a particular exchange deposit route. Keep your transfer decision tied to the actual instructions shown for your account.

Readers reviewing venue information can return to the Bitget exchange profile separately from the investigation. A venue name in an address-tracing report should not decide where you send funds or which product you choose.

What would change the assessment

A substantive Axis response could address the team multisig, the recipients and the purpose of the allocations ZachXBT describes. Useful details would include which transfers the team recognizes, whether it disputes the wallet attributions and how the movements relate to any published allocation terms. A general response that does not identify the disputed transactions would leave those questions open.

A further investigator update could also change the picture by adding transaction references or revising an attribution. Compare any update with the October 29 alert at 20:17 SGT. Check whether it concerns new transfers, a correction to the existing numbers or additional context for the same wallets. Reposting the original totals under a later timestamp would not establish another round of sales.

For market comparisons, retain the source's measurement window: about 40% over the preceding 24 hours. The opened reports do not give a reproducible starting price, ending price and named price venue. A later quote should be labeled with its own time and market. It cannot silently replace the endpoints of the decline reported in this alert.

Quick answers

Who made the allegation?

ZachXBT published the original alert. PANews and Odaily attributed their reports to him. The material opened for this article provides one underlying investigation, carried by multiple publications; it does not establish three independent wallet investigations.

Did the post say all 76 million AXIS were sold?

The alert says insiders received more than 76 million AXIS, began DEX selling and transferred AXIS to Bitget. It separately identifies 42 million AXIS sold by one alleged insider. The written post does not give a complete executed-sale total for all recipients.

Does the report prove sales occurred on Bitget?

It reports AXIS transfers to Bitget and DEX selling. It does not provide an exchange execution record for the transferred tokens. The next useful evidence would clarify the activity after those transfers, or correct their attribution.

What remains unconfirmed?

The opened reports do not independently verify wallet ownership, all recipients' identities, the remaining balance of the full allocation or the precise market-price endpoints. Follow the original alert for transaction-level additions and compare any Axis response with the specific transfers it discusses.