MoversSomeguy↓416Afi↓374Grethos↓352Abhi | AP Collective @ Token 2049 🇸🇬↓281aadvark↓263TradeAnton Boiarchuk↑2.5%vitalik.eth↑7.5%Biti8↑3.2%Cuzzo 🛡️↓4.2%VouchesMLO990 WHUF → Serpin TaxtMLO496 WHUF → CirrusMLO100 WHUF → Phoenix 🐦‍🔥MLO100 WHUF → OSFReviewsjeff.hlpositive · 69 upvotesDegen Ape Traderpositive · 50 upvotesgabriel shapiropositive · 47 upvotesCoinbase Ventures 🛡️positive · 47 upvotes
Profile· Questionable@LABtrade_On Ethos
LAB

LAB

3 reviews, 0% of them positive.0% positive · 3 reviews· Influence factor 31, above 6% of accounts

What people say

Received · 3Given · 0
“negative review”They unilaterally changed the terms of allocation from the sale on the Legion, shifted the terms by +6 months for investors. They consider Legion investors to be scum, no respect, no refunds!sheardy.eth · 1266· 10mo ago · negative3
“Scammy moves from founders”We participated in the private sale round on Legion. After the successful round the LAB decided to change the Agreement and increase the cliff period from 3 to 8 months, which means we will not see out tokens soon. And I would not be surprise if the project will die before the first unlocks. I do not recommend interacting with this project and its founders in any capacity - not as a user, not as a partner, and not as an investor. After moves like this, it’s clear they can do the same to anyonefenkove.eth · 1348· 10mo ago · negative3
“Strong narrative, but a concerning precedent for early investors”LAB presents itself as a long-term infrastructure project rather than a short-term trade — a vision that is generally respectable. However, the recent retroactive change to private investor vesting terms raises serious concerns. The agreement does allow vesting or lock-up terms to be changed, but only in the case of legal or regulatory issues. If that is the justification, it should be explicitly disclosed. Framing these changes around “exchange expectations,” “long-term alignment,” or claims of having “delivered X investment return” is unreasonable and misleading, and does not constitute a valid contractual basis. Early participants accepted risk based on clearly defined conditions. Revising those terms after the fact unilaterally shifts the risk profile and undermines trust. Markets can recover and products can evolve, but investor confidence is far harder to restore once contractual expectations are changed post-hoc. For a project that emphasizes reputation and long-term alignment, this sets a concerning precedent that future investors should carefully considerNat | MD · 1231· 10mo ago · negative2
3 of 3 · most upvoted first