{"id":23022,"date":"2025-04-21T14:31:46","date_gmt":"2025-04-21T14:31:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dogewisperer.com\/?p=23022"},"modified":"2025-04-21T14:31:46","modified_gmt":"2025-04-21T14:31:46","slug":"bitgets-12b-voxel-frenzy-fizzled-fast-but-questions-remain","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dogewisperer.com\/?p=23022","title":{"rendered":"Bitget\u2019s $12B VOXEL frenzy fizzled fast, but questions remain"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\"Bitget\u2019s<\/p>\n

A little-known VOXEL trading pair on cryptocurrency exchange Bitget suddenly clocked over $12 billion in volume on April 20, dwarfing the metrics of the same contract on Binance.<\/p>\n

The activity centered on VOXEL\/USDT perpetual futures, where traders reported instant order fills \u2014 an anomaly many described as a bug that allowed savvy traders to rack up outsized profits by exploiting unusual price behavior.<\/p>\n

The atypical metrics drew Bitget\u2019s attention. In the fallout of its early investigation<\/a>, the exchange suspended accounts suspected of market manipulation and rolled back irregular trades that occurred throughout the day. Traders who copped losses during that period were offered compensation.<\/p>\n

Bitget\u2019s response and remediation plan may have prevented lasting investor damage, but the episode is the latest in a series of cases that raise questions about how exchanges handle market makers, internal systems and user safeguards. While Bitget promotes an open API and regularly touts its global market maker program, it has yet to disclose who was behind the April 20 activity or what technical factors led to it.<\/p>\n

The lack of incident-level detail has fueled speculations comparable to similar breakdowns on Binance \u2014 the world\u2019s largest exchange by trading volume \u2014 that included the sudden price crashes of cryptocurrencies GoPlus (GPS) and MyShell (SHELL) in March. Binance kicked out an unnamed market maker it found responsible for manipulation, but the lack of disclosure added fuel to the crypto industry\u2019s infamous rumor mongering.<\/p>\n

\"Bitget\u2019s
Bitget\u2019s VOXEL\/USDT perpetual futures volume exceeded that of all other top 10 markets combined on April 20. Source: <\/em>Th\u00e0nh Crypto<\/em><\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Traders VOXEL market maker bug, Bitget disagrees<\/h2>\n

Crypto market participants pointed to rapid price fluctuations and what multiple Mandarin-language X accounts described as a bug in a \u201cmarket maker\u201d bot as the cause of VOXEL\u2019s excessive volume.<\/p>\n

Traders claimed that VOXEL\u2019s price flickered between several ranges, such as $0.125 and $0.138. Orders placed between those bands filled instantly due to the suspected bug, X user Dylan said, sharing screenshots and videos of profitable accounts. Perpetual futures contracts are typically matched through an order book, with each trade requiring a counterparty. But in this case, trades appeared to execute automatically and without delay.<\/p>\n

\"Bitget\u2019s
A machine-translated post shares how one trader profits hundreds of thousands of dollars with just $100 USDT in starting capital. Source: <\/em>0xDy_eth<\/em><\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Traders who spotted the suspected bug early used high-leverage bets to boost their profits, X user Qingshui said<\/a>, calling the strategy a \u201czero-cost exploit.\u201d Like Dylan, Qingshui attributed the issue to a market maker bot misfiring and questioned why traders were\u00a0blocked from accessing profits if the problem originated from Bitget\u2019s side.<\/p>\n

Related: <\/strong><\/em>How Mantra\u2019s OM token collapsed in 24 hours of chaos<\/strong><\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

A third user, Hebi555, pointed the finger<\/a> at Bitget\u2019s market-making team for its poor performance. Xie Jiayin, Bitget\u2019s head of Asia, clapped back<\/a>, stating that the exchange works with over 1,000 market makers and institutional clients. He added that Bitget\u2019s API is open to the public and emphasized that specific market maker identities could not be disclosed due to confidentiality agreements.<\/p>\n

In an April 20 response to Cointelegraph, Bitget CEO Gracy Chen said that suspicious trades were between individual market participants<\/a>, not the platform. Replying to Cointelegraph\u2019s follow-up inquiry on April 21, Chen neither confirmed nor denied whether a market maker bot was involved, only reiterating that the trading was \u201cbetween users.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cWe are conducting a thorough review, and once the rollback is completed, trading and account restrictions will be lifted as appropriate. Bitget\u2019s security infrastructure is designed to catch irregularities like this in real time \u2014 as it did in this case,\u201d Chen said.<\/p>\n

Bitget\u2019s VOXEL anomaly adds to crypto\u2019s market manipulation mystery<\/h2>\n

Concerns over market manipulation in the cryptocurrency industry have been intensifying. In early March, the prices of two tokens, GPS and SHELL, crashed in tandem with their Binance<\/a> listings.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The exchange\u2019s investigation found that the two tokens employed the same unnamed market maker. Binance banished<\/a> the dubious trading firm from its platform and confiscated its proceeds to help fund compensation efforts for GPS and SHELL traders. Without a suspect to blame, social media users began pointing fingers at several market makers and trading firms. Those named denied<\/a> any involvement.<\/p>\n

\"Bitget\u2019s
GSR was among the most frequently accused firms, but denied being the market maker removed by Binance. Source: <\/em>GSR<\/em><\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Binance then kicked out<\/a> another unnamed market maker, this time for trading activities related to the Movement (MOVE) token. The MOVE token\u2019s market maker on Binance was found to have associations with the market maker for GPS and SHELL<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Related: <\/strong><\/em>Market maker deals are quietly killing crypto projects<\/strong><\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

A recent Cointelegraph report found that market makers are employing a loan-based model that is killing off small- and medium-cap projects. The loan model gives market makers access to a project\u2019s tokens in exchange for liquidity provision. But instead, what often happens is that market makers dump the loaned tokens on the open market just to buy them back at a cheaper price, leaving the projects with damaged price charts.<\/p>\n

VOXEL was on Bitget, but exploits aren\u2019t limited to CEXs<\/h2>\n

Both Bitget and Binance\u2019s cases show that even the largest centralized exchanges (CEXs) aren\u2019t immune to market manipulation or traders exploiting platforms for profits.<\/p>\n

But a recent case on decentralized exchange (DEX) Hyperliquid shows the issue isn\u2019t confined to CEXs. In late March, a whale allegedly exploited the liquidation parameters on Hyperliquid, resulting in the delisting of the platform\u2019s JELLY perpetual futures product<\/a>. Hyperliquid then announced a compensation plan for affected users, similar to how Bitget responded to its own VOXEL drama.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\"Bitget\u2019s
X user spotlights double standards in how exchanges respond to bugs. Source: <\/em>Dotyyds1234<\/em><\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Ironically, Bitget\u2019s Chen had some strong words against Hyperliquid at the time, raising concerns<\/a> about the network\u2019s centralization. She compared the DEX to FTX, once a billion-dollar trading firm whose founder is now serving a 25-year prison sentence for multiple counts of fraud<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe way it handled the JELLY incident was immature, unethical, and unprofessional, triggering user losses and casting serious doubts over its integrity. Despite presenting itself as an innovative decentralized exchange with a bold vision, Hyperliquid operates more like an offshore CEX with no [Know-Your-Customer\/Anti-Money Laundering], enabling illicit flows and bad actors,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

Bitget\u2019s VOXEL episode may have been contained, and Hyperliquid\u2019s users may be compensated, but the broader pattern is harder to ignore for traders. As platforms scramble to maintain trust, the industry\u2019s vulnerability isn\u2019t just the bugs or exploits, but the silence that follows them.<\/p>\n

Magazine: <\/strong><\/em>Uni students crypto \u2018grooming\u2019 scandal, 67K scammed by fake women: Asia Express<\/strong><\/em><\/a><\/p>\n