MYX Finance, a decentralized exchange platform, is embroiled in controversy following revelations that nearly 10 million MYX tokens, valued at approximately $170 million at the time, were acquired by a group of addresses associated with the project.

According to industry reports, blockchain analysts identified a suspicious pattern indicating that numerous claims originated from wallets that appeared to be part of a coordinated effort.

Blockchain analytics revealed that around 100 newly established wallets were funded on April 19, and subsequently used to claim airdrop tokens on May 7. The synchronized nature of these transactions sparked scrutiny, as the wallets executed a strikingly similar series of steps: funding, claiming, and transferring tokens. Reports indicated that this movement accounted for about 1% of MYX’s total supply, a significant portion for an initial distribution phase.

On-chain data suggests connections between at least one claiming wallet and an address linked to the project’s creators. Investigators highlighted how wallet 0x4a31 transferred nearly $3 million in MYX to a deposit address, 0xeb5A, purportedly associated with a creator-linked wallet, 0x8eEB. These transactions contributed to the belief among some observers that this could be indicative of a Sybil attack, where a single entity wields multiple addresses to unfairly claim rewards.

MYX Finance has denied allegations that its core team orchestrated a coordinated token grab. The project acknowledged requests to modify addresses before the launch and noted that different incentive streams were subject to varying anti-Sybil measures. The team emphasized that a separate initiative, named “Cambrian,” implemented stricter checks, and assured that future protections would be enhanced.

The market’s response was swift and pronounced. Reports observed a decline in token value as confidence among traders and holders waned. Social media platforms saw community members demanding more transparent audits and a public ledger of airdrop beneficiaries. Some advocated for the freezing or return of questionable tokens, while others warned of potential legal or regulatory actions if evidence of deliberate wrongdoing emerges.

Investigators maintain that the on-chain patterns suggestive of misconduct are not definitive proof of an inside job. Critics argue that while links between wallets rely on behavioral analysis and transaction tracing, these techniques can indicate correlations without establishing causation or intent.