Fact-check findings

The reviewer could not reconcile the claim with the evidence it cited. This is a lead, not a ruling that the claim is false.

1. #1[disputed][awaiting moderator]in the timeline

   “2023-06”

   reviewerBingX publicly announced FinCEN and FINTRAC MSB registrations in June 2023The cited announcement is dated January 2022, not June 2023.
   Proposed correction (not yet applied)

   2022-01-31
   citedwww.prnewswire.com/in/news-releases/bing…m-862425432.html

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

1. #6[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: On-Chain Evidence

   “ZachXBT also linked Poloniex to the same cluster, tying four major exchange hacks to a single threat actor, widely understood to be Lazarus Group.”

   reviewerZachXBT linked Poloniex to the same cluster, so four exchange hacks trace to one actorI found no fetched source confirming that ZachXBT tied Poloniex to this cluster in Feb 2025.
2. #9[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Risk Assessment

   “Positively, BingX honored its stated commitment to reimburse affected users”

   reviewerBingX honored its commitment to reimburse affected usersThe sources I read cover the pledge only, not fulfilment.
3. #10[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Regulatory Status

   “However, independent research by Datawallet, which queries the FinCEN MSB registrant search directly, was unable to verify BingX's listing in the FinCEN database.”

   reviewerIndependent research by Datawallet could not verify BingX's FinCEN listingI did not read the Datawallet page, so the claim is not scored. The page also gives the registrant as 'BingX US Limited', which matches the 2022 press release.
   citedwww.datawallet.com/crypto/bingx-restricted-countries
4. #11[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Regulatory Status

   “No SEC, CFTC or DOJ enforcement action against BingX has been identified as of May 2026.”

   reviewerNo SEC, CFTC or DOJ enforcement action as of May 2026A negative claim. My search found no such action but was not exhaustive.

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

1. #2[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: The $52M Hack

   “BingX confirmed a final figure of approximately $52 million.”

   reviewerEstimated hack losses were revised to about $52 million; BingX confirmed a final figure of approximately $52 millionThe $52M figure is a Cyvers estimate in the sources I fetched. I found no BingX confirmation of it. The page treats it as BingX's own confirmed final figure.
   citedwww.dlnews.com/articles/markets/bingx-di…osit-withdrawal/www.coindesk.com/tech/2024/09/20/crypto-…over-43m-drained
2. #3[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in the summary

   “In September 2024, the exchange suffered a confirmed hot wallet breach totaling approximately $52 million across at least seven blockchain networks”

   reviewerExchange confirmed the $52M figure and a 'confirmed' breach totalling about $52M (summary)The breach and the seven chains are supported. The $52M total is an estimate: sources range from $43M to $52M.
   citedcryptoslate.com/north-korea-linked-hack-…n-crypto-assets/
3. #4[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: On-Chain Evidence

   “using at least ten exploit addresses to drain funds across Ethereum, Binance Smart Chain, Base, Optimism, Polygon, Arbitrum, and Avalanche”

   reviewerAttacker used at least ten exploit addresses, per Hakan Unal of CyversThe chains and the Unal quote are supported. I could not confirm the ten-address figure in the CryptoSlate article. Other cited sources were not checked for it.
   citedcryptoslate.com/north-korea-linked-hack-…n-crypto-assets/
4. #5[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: On-Chain Evidence

   “in February 2025, blockchain investigator ZachXBT published on-chain analysis demonstrating that an address used in the BingX hack was directly connected to the same address cluster responsible for the Phemex hack and, subsequently, the Bybit $1.5 billion hack of February 2025.”

   reviewerZachXBT in Feb 2025 linked a BingX hack address to the Phemex and Bybit clusterThe BingX, Phemex and Bybit link is corroborated by secondary reporting. I could not fetch the cited chaincatcher page, so the exact attribution to ZachXBT is not confirmed. The Bybit hack was about $1.4-1.5B.
   citedwww.chaincatcher.com/en/article/2169265

The cited evidence supports the claim as written.

1. #7[confirmed][no action needed]in the timeline

   “Cyvers attributes behavioral patterns of the attacker to tactics consistent with North Korea's Lazarus Group, though formal attribution is not confirmed at this stage.”

   reviewerCyvers attributed the attacker's pattern to Lazarus on 2024-09-20 and PeckShield flagged $26-43M outflowsMatches the source's hedged language.
   citedcryptoslate.com/north-korea-linked-hack-…n-crypto-assets/
2. #8[confirmed][no action needed]in section: The $52M Hack

   “The exchange initially described the event as 'temporary wallet maintenance' and suspended deposits and withdrawals, an act that drew public accusations of a cover-up.”

   reviewerBingX described the event as temporary wallet maintenance, CPO Vivien Lin denied a cover-up, $10M frozen with SlowMist and Chainalysis, and services were restored in stagesSupported by DL News. The 'approximately $26 million' initial figure is supported by CoinDesk. The 'approximately 48 hours' restoration is consistent with the Sept 22 date.
   citedwww.dlnews.com/articles/markets/bingx-di…osit-withdrawal/