83.5% of AXIS Still Locked, Axis Says in Response to Sale Allegations

The 835 million tokens Axis says stayed in place

According to ChainCatcher, Axis said the team, investors and other locked allocations together account for 835 million AXIS, or 83.5% of total supply. The project said those tokens remained in the vesting contracts, that none had moved out, and that they would not unlock before the end of a 12-month lockup. The reported allocation statement.

Odaily also reported the 83.5% figure and the description of vesting contracts jointly managed with Binance. Its shorter account said the core team, investors and all other locked allocations were included in that percentage. Both articles therefore describe a combined allocation category. Reading 83.5% as the team allocation alone would change the meaning of the response. Odaily on the combined locked allocation.

The percentage has a precise limit. Subtracting it from the whole gives 100% − 83.5% = 16.5%. That arithmetic describes the portion outside the reported locked category; it does not establish that every token in the remainder was freely circulating, sold, or controlled by the same party. The statement reported by the outlets identifies the sold tokens more narrowly as part of the ecosystem allocation in initial circulating supply. The allocation categories described by Odaily.

For readers comparing allocation charts with wallet movements, preserve the label beside each number. “Team and investors,” “other locked allocations” and “ecosystem allocation” are different descriptions in Axis's response. Combining them into an unnamed insider balance would lose the distinction that the project is contesting. Conversely, the aggregate locked percentage alone cannot answer a question about a specific transfer outside those contracts.

Axis points to an OTC distribution arrangement

Axis's explanation places the disputed tokens in the ecosystem distribution process. Odaily reported that allocations were delivered through a single over-the-counter, or OTC, counterparty because many ecosystem participants were not crypto-native users. The project said the written agreement with that counterparty included lockup terms. This is the reported explanation for how the allocation was handled, rather than confirmation that the agreement was obeyed. Odaily on the distribution arrangement.

ChainCatcher reported that Axis believed the trading pattern indicated the counterparty might have sold tokens on the public market. Axis said such selling, if confirmed, would conflict with the agreement. The conditional wording matters: the response identifies a suspected route and a contractual concern, while leaving the counterparty's conduct under review. It does not establish a final legal finding against a named seller. ChainCatcher on the suspected counterparty sales.

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

SponsoredBinance

Partner rebate share25%Up to

Check regional eligibility and account terms

✓Code applied automatically by the sign-up link: 11350287

Sign up on Binance →Code11350287Copied

The same report says Axis suspended subsequent transactions with that counterparty and was reviewing the agreement with legal advisers to seek remedies. It also says the remaining ecosystem tokens would in future be distributed only through on-chain vesting mechanisms. These are the actions and intended distribution change described in the response. The report does not supply a completed recovery amount or a schedule for returning tokens. The reported suspension and proposed distribution change.

The useful follow-up is therefore specific. Look for the identity of the relevant allocation, the addresses used to deliver it, and a transaction-by-transaction account of where it went. A later announcement about legal review would answer a different question from a later disclosure of contract balances. Keep those updates separate when deciding whether an article adds evidence about ownership, movement or recovery.

How the response fits the earlier allegations

Both outlets placed the response after allegations attributed to blockchain investigator ZachXBT. They reported that more than 76 million AXIS, valued at more than $12 million in that earlier account, came from a multisignature wallet and were subsequently sold through decentralized exchanges, with some tokens transferred to Bitget. These figures belong to the reported allegations. Neither amount is a fresh valuation measured for this article. Odaily's account of the preceding allegations.

Axis disputed the claim that the sales came from team or investor allocations. Its explanation instead points to ecosystem tokens delivered through the OTC arrangement. Those positions should be read alongside one another: the earlier reporting describes alleged insider-linked activity, and the later response contests the allocation label and identifies a possible counterparty issue. Repeating only the denial would omit the question that prompted it. Repeating only the allegation would omit the new allocation explanation. ChainCatcher's report of Axis's response.

An exchange transfer is not, by itself, a reported executed sale at that venue. Readers reviewing their own AXIS exposure can check the quantity held and any outstanding orders in their account.

The earlier price-fall headline is background to this follow-up. The new headline leads with the reported locked percentage because the opened response supplies that information. It makes no claim about a current AXIS price, a recovery since the earlier fall or the size of any present order book.

What this means for you

The earlier allegation reported some AXIS transfers to Bitget. Treat that destination as a reported transfer; it does not, by itself, establish an executed sale there. Check your own AXIS holding and outstanding orders before changing your exposure. Odaily on the reported transfers.

1. Open the AXIS order or holding you already have and record the market name, quantity and order status. Review whether an unfilled order still reflects your intended exposure after reading both the allegation and the response. This is an account check, not a claim that a particular exchange currently offers a particular AXIS product.

2. If you are reconciling a personal transfer, save its transaction identifier and compare it with your account's own deposit or withdrawal record. Keep that record separate from the wallets discussed in a news report. A matching token name alone is insufficient to connect your transaction with the disputed ecosystem allocation.

3. Before using the 83.5% figure in a decision, write down the exact category it describes: the project's combined locked allocations. If your concern is future ecosystem distribution, seek the promised on-chain vesting details. If your concern is an existing contract, seek its address and unlock terms. Each question calls for its own evidence.

4. Follow the next statement for a concrete change: a disclosed counterparty, a reconciled wallet trail, a verifiable contract balance, or an implemented distribution arrangement. A repeated denial with the same percentage would repeat the response; a new address or agreement detail could help test it. The opened reports give no date for such a disclosure.

Quick answers

Did Axis say the team sold its allocation?

Axis denied that team or investor tokens were sold. It said the sold tokens belonged to an ecosystem allocation within initial circulating supply. That is the project's account as reported by the two outlets, and the allocation distinction is the central new development. Odaily's report.

Does the 12-month lockup give an exact unlock date?

ChainCatcher reported a 12-month lockup, but the opened article does not provide the starting timestamp needed to calculate a calendar unlock date. Treat the duration as a reported term. Do not turn it into a dated countdown by assuming when the clock began. ChainCatcher on the lockup duration.

Has the counterparty dispute been resolved?

The response described suspended transactions, legal review and possible remedies. The opened account does not report a final finding, a settlement or recovered proceeds. It also does not identify the counterparty by name. A future recovery claim should specify the asset, amount and destination before it is compared with the earlier selling allegations. The reported status of the review.

What would make the allocation explanation easier to test?

An address list tied to the reported 835 million locked AXIS would allow a more specific comparison with the disputed transfers. The ecosystem delivery transactions and the relevant lockup terms would address the separate counterparty question. The contract addresses, ecosystem delivery records and relevant lockup terms remain the concrete details to seek in the next disclosure.