MemeCore’s token, M, suffered a sharp market selloff, falling more than 76% over the past 24 hours to trade around $0.68 on June 25, according to CoinGecko price data. It briefly extended losses to as low as $0.5055 earlier in the day, wiping out nearly $3 billion in market value and pushing the asset out of large-cap crypto benchmarks it had previously tracked at higher valuations.
Blockchain investigators said the drawdown was driven by renewed scrutiny of tokenomics, liquidity, and exchange listings rather than by any publicly confirmed hack or official project announcement explaining the move. On-chain research pointed to concerns around concentrated token ownership and limited on-chain liquidity, both of which can amplify price declines during periods of heavy selling.
Key takeaways
- Price move: M plunged more than 76% to about $0.68 after trading as low as $0.5055.
- Catalyst: No confirmed exploit was cited; renewed concerns about token distribution, liquidity, and exchange listings resurfaced following the selloff.
- Market implication: The collapse reduced MemeCore’s market capitalisation to about $940.9 million and its fully diluted valuation to roughly $3.85 billion.
- Investor takeaway: Limited liquidity and concentrated holdings can make tokens vulnerable to abrupt repricing when demand breaks.
What drove the move
The selloff accelerated quickly, taking M from nearly $3 down to around $0.50 within hours, according to price action described in the report. CoinGecko data showed M had traded between roughly $0.5055 and $2.92 during the prior 24-hour window, underscoring how abruptly market pricing shifted.
On-chain investigator ZachXBT said that the fully diluted valuation had fallen from about $14 billion to roughly $3.8 billion after the sudden selloff on centralised exchanges, based on his analysis posted on Telegram. ZachXBT added that he, along with other investigators, had previously raised concerns about concentrated token ownership and alleged misleading user-growth practices.
In related analysis, ZachXBT referenced Arkham data indicating no single transfer larger than $50,000 on BNB Chain for more than two weeks, and he cited Dexscreener data showing less than $100,000 of total on-chain liquidity on the network. He also questioned why M was listed for perpetual futures on Binance and Bybit, and why it was listed as a spot asset on Kraken and Bitget.
ZachXBT further urged MemeCore figure Rudy Rong to address how many retail investors may have lost money due to what the investigator described as manipulation by the project’s team, according to a separate post on X.
Market reaction and why it matters
Beyond the price impact, the sharp decline changed how investors positioned M within the broader crypto market. The report said the token was pushed out of large-cap cryptocurrencies after previously trading at much higher valuations, reflecting a rapid reassessment of the asset’s size and perceived risk profile.
With MemeCore’s market capitalisation reported at about $940.9 million and its fully diluted valuation at roughly $3.85 billion, the repricing also highlighted the gap between circulating-market estimates and fully diluted valuations—an issue that often becomes more contentious when token distribution and liquidity come under scrutiny.
While the underlying reason for the selloff remained unconfirmed in the reporting, the renewed focus on listing standards and liquidity conditions suggests investors were weighing the possibility that trading depth and holder concentration could magnify volatility during stressful flows.
Earlier warnings and the renewed spotlight on listings
Questions about MemeCore’s token distribution were not new. The report said ZachXBT raised issues as early as April, asking for explanations about how M reached a multibillion-dollar valuation while a large portion of its supply appeared concentrated among a limited number of holders.
That earlier analysis cited blockchain data suggesting a Binance deposit address held about 41.3% of the token supply, and that another wallet controlled 50 million M tokens worth about $178 million at the time, accounting for an additional 21.77% of the circulating supply. Those earlier figures were cited as part of the rationale for why renewed attention returned after the abrupt collapse.
In April, ZachXBT also questioned Kraken’s decision to list M, pointing to what he described as suspicious withdrawals to newly created addresses and alleged team-linked transfers into Kraken deposit addresses. He further claimed insiders had helped push M to a $6 billion market capitalisation and an $18 billion fully diluted valuation, though the report noted that such claims remained allegations and were not independently verified by all parties.
As of now, the immediate cause of the June selloff has not been confirmed by an official explanation in the reporting, leaving markets to infer motive from structural factors such as distribution and liquidity.
Technical damage and what it would take to recover
Technical levels, as described in the report, suggested the selloff broke down key price structure. After trading sideways for several weeks around $2.8 to $3.2, M lost support near the lower end of that range before collapsing almost vertically to around $0.68.
The report said the move pushed the token below Fibonacci extension levels in a single session, including the 1.618 extension near $2.10 and the 2.618 extension around $1.27, before stabilising close to the 3.618 extension. It also noted that volume activity historically clustered well above the current price, implying fewer nearby trading “anchors” where dip buyers previously stepped in during earlier cycles.
For a sustained recovery, the report indicated M would likely need to reclaim areas roughly between $1.30 and $2.10, while the former consolidation zone near $3 would represent stronger resistance. It added that technical indicators cannot on their own explain what triggered the decline, but they do show buyers failed to establish support as the breakdown unfolded.
Investors will likely watch for any official response from MemeCore and the exchanges involved in M’s listings, alongside any new on-chain evidence that could clarify whether the move was tied to liquidity events, transfer activity, or other market mechanics. Additional transparency on token distribution and liquidity conditions may be critical in determining whether the selloff stabilises or further repricing follows.
