← Bitget Exchange (Shawn Liu)reviewed 2026-09-09 · 21 claims checked
Fact-check findings
What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read Bitget Exchange (Shawn Liu) 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.
disputed
2 claimsThe reviewer could not reconcile the claim with the evidence it cited. This is a lead, not a ruling that the claim is false.
- #14[disputed][awaiting moderator]in section: Regulatory Warnings and Licensing Issues
“In July 2025, Saskatchewan's Financial and Consumer Affairs Authority issued an investor alert stating that Canada Bitget Limited is not registered to trade or advise in securities or derivatives in the province, alongside the Alberta Securities Commission.”
reviewerIn July 2025, Saskatchewan's FCAA issued an investor alert on Canada Bitget Limited, alongside the Alberta Securities Commission.The word 'alongside' implies simultaneous action, but the Alberta Securities Commission's listing predates the Saskatchewan alert by more than a year. This conflates two distinct regulatory events into one date.Proposed correction (not yet applied)In July 2025, Saskatchewan's Financial and Consumer Affairs Authority issued an investor alert stating that Canada Bitget Limited is not registered to trade or advise in securities or derivatives in the province; the Alberta Securities Commission had separately added Canada Bitget Limited to its Investment Caution List in April 2024. - #16[disputed][awaiting moderator]in section: User Experience and Consumer Complaints
“The exchange also paused new user onboarding in India effective February 6, 2025 to align with local regulatory expectations, though existing users were not impacted.”
reviewerBitget's temporary restriction on new user onboarding in India took effect February 6, 2025.The page's own cited source contradicts the year given on the page; this is a one-year date error, not a stale claim, since the event itself has not been superseded.Proposed correction (not yet applied)The exchange also paused new user onboarding in India effective February 6, 2026 to align with local regulatory expectations, though existing users were not impacted.
unverifiable
1 claimNo source the reviewer could reach confirms or contradicts the claim.
- #2[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“Bitget launches copy trading for derivatives, becoming the first centralized exchange to offer this product for futures.”
reviewerBitget launched copy trading for derivatives in 2020, becoming the first CEX to offer this product for futures.The 2020 launch date is plausible and widely repeated, but the 'first centralized exchange' superlative traces only to Bitget's own marketing copy with no independent/neutral confirmation found.
partially supported
2 claimsThe cited evidence supports part of the claim but not all of it.
- #12[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: Regulatory Warnings and Licensing Issues
“In April 2024, France's Autorite des Marches Financiers blacklisted Bitget, warned retail investors to exercise vigilance, and reserved the right to take legal action to block Bitget's platform; subsequently, Bitget discontinued all services for French residents effective March 31, 2026.”
reviewerIn April 2024, France's AMF blacklisted Bitget, warning retail investors and reserving the right to take legal action; Bitget later discontinued French services effective March 31, 2026.The underlying fact (Bitget is AMF-blacklisted and was warned/restricted) is true, but the page frames April 2024 as when AMF 'blacklisted Bitget,' when AMF's own release shows the blacklisting dates to November 2023 and April 2024 was merely a public reminder. - #13[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“France's AMF blacklists Bitget, warning retail investors and reserving rights to block the platform.”
reviewerFrance's AMF blacklists Bitget, warning retail investors and reserving rights to block the platform (dated 2024-04-03 in the timeline).The date field (2024-04-03) is accurate for the AMF press release; only the event prose is mischaracterized. Same underlying defect as the section 5 finding above.
confirmed
16 claimsThe cited evidence supports the claim as written.
- #1[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Overview and Background
“Bitget was founded in 2018 by a team with a traditional finance background that became interested in cryptocurrency after studying the Bitcoin whitepaper and Ethereum ecosystem.”
reviewerBitget was founded in 2018.Widely and consistently reported founding year and origin story; no contradicting sources found. - #3[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Overview and Background
“The exchange's native token, BGB (Bitget Token), launched on July 26, 2021 with an initial supply of 2 billion tokens and recorded over 1,000% price growth in 2024, reaching an all-time high of $8.45 on December 27, 2024.”
reviewerBGB token launched July 26, 2021 with an initial supply of 2 billion tokens, grew over 1,000% in 2024, and hit an ATH of $8.45 on December 27, 2024.All figures independently corroborated across multiple secondary sources. - #4[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Overview and Background
“As of 2025, Bitget held approximately 6.4% global market share among centralized exchanges, ranking sixth according to CoinGecko's annual report.”
reviewerAs of 2025, Bitget held approximately 6.4% global market share among centralized exchanges, ranking sixth per CoinGecko.Figure is self-reported (via Bitget's summary of CoinGecko data) but matches the underlying CoinGecko report language. - #5[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Leadership and Alleged Shadow Ownership
“Bitget's publicly identified leadership includes CEO Gracy Chen, who was appointed in May 2024, succeeding Sandra Lou. Chen holds a bachelor's degree from the National University of Singapore and an MBA from MIT, and joined Bitget as its first Managing Director in June 2022.”
reviewerGracy Chen was appointed CEO in May 2024, succeeding Sandra Lou; holds a bachelor's from NUS and MBA from MIT; joined as first Managing Director in June 2022.Consistent across independent biographical sources. - #6[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Leadership and Alleged Shadow Ownership
“However, pseudonymous on-chain investigator ZachXBT alleged in May 2026 that the exchange's true decision-maker is founder Shawn Liu, and that Gracy Chen functions as 'the face' of the exchange while Liu operates behind the scenes. ZachXBT further alleged that Liu 'allows scams to operate behind the scenes.'”
reviewerZachXBT alleged in May 2026 that founder Shawn Liu is Bitget's true decision-maker, that Gracy Chen is 'the face' of the exchange, and that Liu 'allows scams to operate behind the scenes.'The page's paraphrase and partial quotation accurately reflect ZachXBT's reported statement, and the allegation is correctly presented as unconfirmed/attributed. - #7[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Alleged Token Manipulation and Market Maker Fraud
“On-chain data cited by ZachXBT showed that wallets linked to the LAB project team transferred approximately 96 million LAB tokens — valued at approximately $63 million — to Bitget accounts shortly before a price surge of more than 350% over 72 hours that briefly pushed LAB's fully diluted valuation to $6 billion.”
reviewerZachXBT alleged Bitget enabled supply manipulation involving RAVE, RIVER, SIREN and LAB, with LAB the most detailed case: ~96M LAB tokens (~$63M) moved to Bitget before a 350%+ surge to a $6B FDV, followed by 10 wallets withdrawing ~100M LAB (~$480M) in 12 hours; ~95% insider control; $10,000 bounty on Vova Sadkov; calls on Binance, Bitget and Gate to freeze/delist.All specific figures in this section (96M tokens/$63M, 350%/72hr, $6B FDV, 100M tokens/$480M/10 wallets/12hr, 95% insider control, $10K bounty, and the call on Binance/Bitget/Gate to freeze or delist) were independently corroborated across the cited outlets. This remains a single-source (ZachXBT) allegation, which the page appropriately flags as unconfirmed by regulators. - #8[confirmed][no action needed]in section: VOXEL Futures Incident and Trade Rollback
“On April 20, 2025, Bitget's VOXEL/USDT perpetual futures market experienced abnormal trading activity. The VOXEL token surged over 200% in approximately 30 minutes, generating $12.7 billion in trading volume on Bitget — surpassing Bitcoin's $4.76 billion on the same platform the same day. Post-incident investigation revealed that a bug in Bitget's own market-making bot allowed traders to exploit the price action within a narrow price band of approximately $0.125 to $0.138.”
reviewerVOXEL/USDT futures generated $12.7B in volume in ~30 minutes/24 hours on April 20, 2025, exceeding Bitcoin's $4.76B on the platform, due to a bug in Bitget's own market-making bot trading within a ~$0.125-$0.138 band; Bitget identified 8 accounts, rolled back trades within 24 hours, and pursued legal action.Root cause, volumes, and price band figures all independently confirmed. - #9[confirmed][no action needed]in section: VOXEL Futures Incident and Trade Rollback
“The incident drew attention partly because Bitget CEO Gracy Chen had previously and publicly criticized Hyperliquid's decision to intervene in a similar market manipulation event involving the JELLY token, before Bitget faced an equivalent situation requiring the same type of intervention.”
reviewerGracy Chen had previously and publicly criticized Hyperliquid's intervention in the JELLY incident before Bitget faced an equivalent VOXEL situation requiring the same type of intervention.Independently corroborated; multiple outlets noted the irony explicitly. - #10[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Regulatory Warnings and Licensing Issues
“In April 2022, Spain's Comision Nacional del Mercado de Valores issued a public warning that Bitget is not authorized to provide investment services.”
reviewerSpain's CNMV issued a public warning in April 2022 (dated April 25, 2022) that Bitget is not authorized to provide investment services.Date corroborated exactly. - #11[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Regulatory Warnings and Licensing Issues
“In January 2024, the Austrian Financial Market Authority warned against transacting with Bitget or BG Limited, which are not authorized to carry out licensed banking transactions in Austria. In February 2024, Germany's BaFin warned investors against offers from BG Limited and stated it does not supervise the entity.”
reviewerAustria's FMA warned against Bitget/BG Limited in January 2024 (dated January 10, 2024); Germany's BaFin warned against BG Limited in February 2024 (dated February 6, 2024).Both dates corroborated exactly against the ASIC primary source. - #15[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Regulatory Warnings and Licensing Issues
“On July 28, 2025, Australia's ASIC warned investors against Bitget's unlicensed cryptocurrency asset futures products, noting that the exchange's entity BTG Technology Holdings Limited does not hold an Australian Financial Services Licence and offers leverage up to 125:1 — compared to ASIC's licensed cap of 2:1.”
reviewerAustralia's ASIC issued an investor alert on July 28, 2025 warning against Bitget's unlicensed crypto futures products via BTG Technology Holdings Limited, citing 125:1 leverage versus ASIC's licensed 2:1 cap.Directly confirmed by the primary regulator source. - #17[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Proof of Reserves and Protection Fund
“As of October 2025, Bitget reported reserve ratios of 307% for BTC, 224% for ETH, 105% for USDT, and 129% for USDC. In March 2025, the reported total reserve ratio was 213%.”
reviewerBitget publishes monthly Proof of Reserves; as of October 2025 reserve ratios were 307% BTC, 224% ETH, 105% USDT, 129% USDC; March 2025 total ratio was 213%.Both self-reported figure sets are exactly matched in the primary/PR sources cited. Page appropriately caveats that these are self-reported and not independently audited by a named third party. - #18[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Proof of Reserves and Protection Fund
“Bitget established a Protection Fund in 2022 with an initial allocation of $300 million, denominated largely in BTC. The fund grew to an average of $561 million in April 2025 and reached a reported high of $716 million in June 2025.”
reviewerBitget's Protection Fund was established in 2022 with an initial $300M allocation, grew to an average $561M in April 2025, and reached a high of $716M in June 2025.Figures are self-reported by Bitget across its own PR releases; consistent across the two sources checked. - #19[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Proof of Reserves and Protection Fund
“In February 2025, Bitget transferred 40,000 ETH ($105 million) to Bybit from its own reserves during the period following the Bybit $1.4 billion Lazarus Group hack, which the exchange framed as an industry solidarity measure.”
reviewerIn February 2025, Bitget transferred 40,000 ETH (~$105 million) to Bybit following the Bybit Lazarus Group hack.Well-documented, widely reported event; figure matches the cited source's own headline. - #20[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Security Record
“Bitget has not experienced a major external hack resulting in user fund losses as of the date of this report.”
reviewerBitget has not experienced a major external hack resulting in user fund losses; the VOXEL incident was an internal bot bug, not an external attack.No independent reporting found of a Bitget-specific hack with user fund losses as of the review date. - #21[confirmed][no action needed]in section: User Experience and Consumer Complaints
“Bitget reported blocking over 150 million malicious requests and resolving 18,135 user protection cases between July 2025 and June 2026, with $32.3 million in fraudulent activity recovered.”
reviewerBetween July 2025 and June 2026, Bitget blocked over 150 million malicious requests, resolved 18,135 user protection cases, and recovered $32.3 million in fraudulent activity.Self-reported by Bitget via its third annual Anti-Scam Month report; figures match the cited article precisely.
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.