Skip to main content
AVOID.NET
← AscendEX (BitMax)reviewed 2026-11-03 · 6 claims checked

Fact-check findings

What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read AscendEX (BitMax) against the sources the page cites. Only the most recent review is shown.

Read this first

These findings are produced by an automated reviewer, and its results vary between runs: the same page, checked three times on the same day, came back with 15%, 20% and 34% of its claims disputed, mostly because each run extracted a different number of claims. Treat what follows as leads, not rulings.

“Disputed” means the reviewer could not reconcile the claim with the evidence it cited. It does not mean the claim is false. “Unverifiable” means no reachable source settled it either way.

Nothing here changes the page on its own. A proposed correction is applied only after a human moderator approves it; until then the page reads as it did when reviewed.

unverifiable 1partially supported 1confirmed 40 corrections pending · 0 applied

unverifiable

1 claim

No source the reviewer could reach confirms or contradicts the claim.

  1. #6[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Regulatory Status
    “a listing dated September 2024”
    reviewerAMF listed ascendex.com on its blacklist in September 2024.Not fetched because of time limits; the date was not independently checked.
    citedprotectepargne.amf-france.org/sites/prot…ascendex_com.pdf

partially supported

1 claim

The cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.

  1. #4[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: On-Chain Reserve Decline and Withdrawal Complaints
    “more than $12 million of which was in illiquid tokens tied to the exchange's own ecosystem”
    reviewerThe $12M+ in Arkham-labeled addresses was in illiquid tokens tied to the exchange's own ecosystem.The 'illiquid' label and the 'exchange's own ecosystem' framing go beyond the fetched text.
    citedprotos.com/ascendex-shutdown-uncertainty…llets-lack-funds

confirmed

4 claims

The cited evidence supports the claim as written.

  1. #1[confirmed][no action needed]in section: July 2026 Shutdown and Withdrawal Freeze
    “AscendEX ceased all operations effective July 1, 2026.”
    reviewerAscendEX ceased operations effective July 1, 2026, citing lack of MiCA authorization.The Block confirms the shutdown date, the MiCA reason, the counterparty non-performance and manual-review withdrawals.
    citedwww.theblock.co/post/407654/ascendex-shuts-down
  2. #2[confirmed][no action needed]in section: December 2021 Hot Wallet Hack (~$77-78 Million)
    “Losses spanned Ethereum (about $60 million), BNB Smart Chain (about $9.2 million), and Polygon (about $8.5 million).”
    reviewerHack figures and chain breakdown.Matches The Block. The Merkle Science figure of $71.25M was not checked.
    citedwww.theblock.co/post/127231/crypto-excha…n-latest-swindle
  3. #3[confirmed][no action needed]in section: On-Chain Reserve Decline and Withdrawal Complaints
    “Crypto outlet Protos reported that on-chain data showed AscendEX's reserves fell by more than $240 million on June 20, 2026”
    reviewerProtos reported reserves fell by more than $240M on June 20, 2026.Confirmed.
    citedprotos.com/ascendex-shutdown-uncertainty…llets-lack-funds
  4. #5[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Founder Conduct and Leadership Response
    “The Block's report on the shutdown likewise named no founder or executive”
    reviewerThe Block's report names no founder or executive.Confirmed.
    citedwww.theblock.co/post/407654/ascendex-shuts-down
How this fits together. The reviewer reads the published page and its cited sources and records one finding per claim. A human moderator decides whether each proposed correction is applied; those decisions, and the score changes they cause, appear in the audit log. Earlier review runs are not shown here; only the latest reflects the page as it stands.