← Bitgetreviewed 2026-09-25 · 25 claims checked
Fact-check findings
What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read Bitget 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
4 claimsThe reviewer could not reconcile the claim with the evidence it cited. This is a lead, not a ruling that the claim is false.
- #13[disputed][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“2021-12”
reviewerMAS suspended Bitget's exemption in December 2021The regulatory action (MAS quietly withdrawing the exemption) appears to have taken place around July 2021, per Protos/FT-sourced reporting; the December 2021 date reflects only when the story became public (Bloomberg/Cointelegraph coverage), not when MAS acted. The timeline field states the suspension itself happened in December, which is not supported by the cited source and is contradicted by other reporting.Proposed correction (not yet applied)2021-07 - #23[disputed][awaiting moderator]in section: User Complaints: Account Freezes and Customer Support
“Trustpilot shows a middling composite rating (reported around 3.1/5 from over 2,500 reviews) with a recurring pattern of complaints”
reviewerTrustpilot shows a middling composite rating around 3.1/5 from over 2,500 reviews for BitgetThe page's characterization of Bitget's Trustpilot standing as 'middling' materially understates how negative the current rating is; live data at the cited URL contradicts the stated figure. Trustpilot scores do fluctuate over time and the archived snapshot cited (dated 2026-03-11) could not be independently re-fetched to confirm it ever showed 3.1/5, but the discrepancy with the current live page is large enough (3.1 vs 1.8, 2,500 vs 1,713 reviews) to flag as disputed rather than merely stale drift.Proposed correction (not yet applied)Trustpilot shows a poor composite rating (reported around 1.8/5 from over 1,700 reviews) with a recurring pattern of complaints - #24[disputed][awaiting moderator]in section: Corporate Leadership and Public Conduct
“In April 2026, Chen publicly called rival platform Hyperliquid an 'immature, unethical, and unprofessional... overmarketed fake crypto DEX' posing 'FTX 2.0' risk, after Hyperliquid closed a JELLY market and force-settled positions; the remarks drew significant backlash on social media and were characterized by some commentators as inflammatory rather than substantive.”
reviewerIn April 2026, CEO Gracy Chen called Hyperliquid an 'immature, unethical, and unprofessional... overmarketed fake crypto DEX' posing 'FTX 2.0' risk, after Hyperliquid closed a JELLY market and force-settled positionsThe quoted language itself is accurate (confirmed near-verbatim against Yahoo Finance/CryptoNews coverage), but the event is misdated by a full year. The triggering JELLY incident and Chen's response both occurred in March/April 2025; the cited Yahoo Finance article carries a April 8, 2026 byline that appears to be a syndication/republish timestamp rather than the original event date. This same year error also appears in the timeline.Proposed correction (not yet applied)In April 2025, Chen publicly called rival platform Hyperliquid an 'immature, unethical, and unprofessional... overmarketed fake crypto DEX' posing 'FTX 2.0' risk, after Hyperliquid closed a JELLY market and force-settled positions; the remarks drew significant backlash on social media and were characterized by some commentators as inflammatory rather than substantive. - #25[disputed][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
“2026-04”
reviewerGracy Chen's Hyperliquid 'fake DEX' remarks occurred April 2026, with the underlying tweet dated 2026-04-07Same underlying year error as the section-level finding above; the timeline's date_original field ('2026-04-07') should also be corrected by the page owner, though per instructions this review does not target date_original/date_evidence/date_precision fields directly.Proposed correction (not yet applied)2025-04
stale
1 claimThe claim was accurate when written but events since have overtaken it.
- #10[stale][awaiting moderator]in section: Regulatory Status: France (AMF Blacklist)
“The AMF reiterated the warning in a notice published April 3, 2024, urging French investors already using the platform to withdraw their assets given the risk of sudden service disruption, and reserving the right to seek a legal block of the site.”
reviewerAMF reiterated the warning in a notice published April 3, 2024, urging withdrawal of assets and reserving right to block the site — presented as the current/still-live regulatory posture, with no mention that Bitget subsequently discontinued all services to French residentsThe April 2024 notice itself is accurately quoted, but the section frames the 2023/2024 warnings as the current regulatory status without disclosing that Bitget voluntarily exited the French market entirely by March 31, 2026 — nearly six months before this page's own 'as of' date. This is the single most significant staleness issue on the page given the section otherwise reads as evergreen/current.Proposed correction (not yet applied)The AMF reiterated the warning in a notice published April 3, 2024, urging French investors already using the platform to withdraw their assets given the risk of sudden service disruption, and reserving the right to seek a legal block of the site; Bitget subsequently announced it would discontinue all services for French residents effective March 31, 2026, citing compliance with French regulatory requirements following discussions with the AMF.
confirmed
20 claimsThe cited evidence supports the claim as written.
- #1[confirmed][no action needed]in section: September 2026 Hot Wallet Hack ($351.6 Million)
“At 18:31 UTC on September 24, 2026, Bitget's security systems detected unauthorized transfers from a limited number of the exchange's hot and warm wallets.”
reviewerBitget detected unauthorized transfers at 18:31 UTC on Sept 24, 2026, totaling ~$351.6M across ETH, USDT/stablecoins, tokenized gold, AVAX and BNB, with attacker swapping freezeable stablecoins into ETHDirectly corroborated by multiple contemporaneous tier-2 outlets and confirmed live at the cited Decrypt URL. - #2[confirmed][no action needed]in section: September 2026 Hot Wallet Hack ($351.6 Million)
“CEO Gracy Chen stated that Bitget operates a three-tier wallet architecture and that the breach was 'contained to a portion of the exchange's hot and warm wallet layers,' with cold wallets and the majority of platform assets unaffected.”
reviewerCEO Gracy Chen stated the breach was contained to hot/warm wallet layers within a three-tier architecture; cold wallets and User Protection Fund (>$464M) unaffected/covering the lossWell supported. - #3[confirmed][no action needed]in section: September 2026 Hot Wallet Hack ($351.6 Million)
“Independent blockchain analysts, including Arkham Intelligence, flagged the unusual wallet outflows before Bitget's official announcement, and some outlets initially reported lower figures (approximately $178–183 million) before the exchange confirmed the larger $351.6 million total.”
reviewerArkham Intelligence and other on-chain analysts flagged the outflows before Bitget's official confirmation, with initial reports around $178-183M before the $351.6M figure was confirmedConfirmed via independent timeline reporting. - #4[confirmed][no action needed]in section: September 2026 Hot Wallet Hack ($351.6 Million)
“The incident pushed reported crypto-industry losses for September 2026 above $684 million, making it the costliest month of the year by gross loss, surpassing April 2026's roughly $646.9 million (driven largely by the Drift and KelpDAO exploits).”
reviewerSeptember 2026 industry losses exceeded $684M, the costliest month of 2026, surpassing April 2026's ~$646.9M driven by Drift and KelpDAO exploitsMatches cited source closely. - #5[confirmed][no action needed]in section: September 2026 Hot Wallet Hack ($351.6 Million)
“No entity has yet claimed responsibility, and no confirmed attribution (e.g., to North Korea's Lazarus Group, which was blamed for the $1.5 billion Bybit hack in February 2025) had been established at time of writing.”
reviewerNo entity has claimed responsibility and no confirmed attribution to Lazarus Group had been established; Lazarus was blamed for the $1.5B Bybit hack in February 2025Bybit/Lazarus reference is accurate background; no Bitget attribution claim is made, appropriately hedged. - #6[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Predecessor Security Incidents: BitKeep / Bitget Wallet Breaches
“In October 2022, a swap-feature exploit reportedly caused losses of roughly $1 million.”
reviewerBitKeep suffered a swap-feature exploit in October 2022 causing ~$1 million in lossesConfirmed by contemporaneous reporting. - #7[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Predecessor Security Incidents: BitKeep / Bitget Wallet Breaches
“In December 2022, attackers distributed a counterfeit, trojanized version of the BitKeep app that harvested users' seed phrases; blockchain security firm PeckShield estimated total losses at approximately $8 million, comprising BNB, USDT, DAI and ETH. BitKeep pledged full refunds and reported that 11,090 affected wallets had been compensated by March 2023.”
reviewerDecember 2022 trojanized BitKeep app harvested seed phrases; PeckShield estimated ~$8M in losses (BNB, USDT, DAI, ETH); 11,090 wallets compensated by March 2023Well supported by multiple independent outlets. - #8[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Predecessor Security Incidents: BitKeep / Bitget Wallet Breaches
“Bitget acquired BitKeep in March 2023 following a $30 million fundraise and rebranded it as Bitget Wallet, implementing management and security changes.”
reviewerBitget acquired BitKeep in March 2023 following a $30 million fundraise and rebranded it as Bitget WalletConfirmed. - #9[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Regulatory Status: France (AMF Blacklist)
“France's Autorité des Marchés Financiers (AMF) has blacklisted Bitget since November 7, 2023, stating the platform is not registered as a Digital Asset Service Provider (DASP) and is therefore not authorized to provide digital asset services in France.”
reviewerFrance's AMF has blacklisted Bitget since November 7, 2023 for operating as an unregistered DASPDirectly confirmed by the primary regulator source. - #11[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Regulatory Status: France (AMF Blacklist)
“Separately, following the end of the EU's MiCA transitional period on July 1, 2026, Bitget restricted access for users in Austria, France and Germany while its Vienna-based EU entity (which filed a MiCA/CASP authorization application with Austria's Financial Market Authority, announced June 17, 2026) awaits approval.”
reviewerFollowing the end of the MiCA transitional period (July 1, 2026), Bitget restricted access for users in Austria, France and Germany while its Vienna-based EU entity (filed MiCA/CASP application with Austria's FMA, announced June 17, 2026) awaits approval; Bitget did not hold full MiCA authorizationConfirmed. - #12[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Regulatory Status: Singapore, Hong Kong, Philippines and Other Markets
“In 2021, Singapore's Monetary Authority (MAS) suspended an exemption that had allowed Bitget to serve retail and institutional clients, after the exchange listed a K-pop-fan-themed token ('Army Coin,' named after BTS's fanbase) that BTS's agency HYBE said had no affiliation with the band; reports characterized the action as tied to alleged false or misleading advertising.”
reviewerIn 2021, Singapore's MAS suspended the exemption allowing Bitget to serve retail/institutional clients after the Army Coin disputeThe year (2021) in the section prose is correct and unspecific enough to stand; see separate timeline-date finding below for the month discrepancy. - #14[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Regulatory Status: Singapore, Hong Kong, Philippines and Other Markets
“BitgetX withdrew from Hong Kong in 2023 rather than pursue a virtual-asset trading license there.”
reviewerBitgetX withdrew from Hong Kong in 2023 rather than pursue a virtual-asset trading licenseConfirmed. - #15[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Regulatory Status: Singapore, Hong Kong, Philippines and Other Markets
“The Philippines blocked access to Bitget's website starting August 1, 2025, with the Philippine SEC citing the platform's operation without required Virtual Asset Service Provider (VASP) registration.”
reviewerThe Philippines blocked access to Bitget's website starting August 1, 2025, per the SEC citing lack of VASP registrationConfirmed. - #16[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Regulatory Status: Singapore, Hong Kong, Philippines and Other Markets
“Bitget does hold licenses/registrations in some markets, including El Salvador (DASP and BSP licenses), Australia (AUSTRAC registration), and various EU national VASP registrations.”
reviewerBitget holds licenses/registrations in El Salvador (DASP and BSP), Australia (AUSTRAC), and various EU national VASP registrations, but no US entity or licenseConfirmed. - #17[confirmed][no action needed]in section: United Kingdom: Withdrawal and Relaunch
“Bitget ceased UK operations in 2024 in response to the Financial Conduct Authority's (FCA) restrictions on retail crypto derivatives, then relaunched its UK platform after securing approval for its financial promotions through Archax, an FCA-authorized financial promotions reviewer, allowing UK users renewed access to trading and custody services.”
reviewerBitget ceased UK operations in 2024 amid FCA retail crypto-derivatives restrictions, then relaunched via Archax financial-promotions approval, short of full FCA authorizationConfirmed; page's caveat that this is not full FCA authorization is accurate. - #18[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Token Listing Disputes and Alleged Market Manipulation
“In late 2023, Bitget became embroiled in a dispute with the Floki Inu team over the listing of the TokenFi (TOKEN) memecoin; Floki alleged Bitget listed a fake version of the token roughly twelve minutes before the genuine token had been issued and facilitated tens of millions of dollars of trading volume without holding underlying tokens, while Bitget cited suspected market manipulation and 'malicious control of liquidity' on decentralized exchanges as grounds for delisting.”
reviewerFloki alleged Bitget listed a fake TokenFi token ~12 minutes before the genuine token issuance, generating tens of millions in volume; Bitget cited suspected market manipulation via malicious liquidity control as grounds for delistingConfirmed, close paraphrase of reported facts. - #19[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Token Listing Disputes and Alleged Market Manipulation
“Separately, Bitget faced a lawsuit from an advisor to the ReelStar (REELT) token project after that token's listing went sour; Bitget publicly stated an influencer involved had acted in bad faith and said it would cooperate with authorities on possible insider trading or price manipulation, after REELT's price fell over 60% from its opening price, prompting delisting and user compensation.”
reviewerBitget faced a lawsuit from a ReelStar advisor after the listing went sour; Bitget said an influencer acted in bad faith and would cooperate with authorities on possible insider trading/manipulation, after REELT fell over 60% from its opening priceConfirmed. - #20[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Token Listing Disputes and Alleged Market Manipulation
“Blockchain investigator ZachXBT has separately accused Bitget of allowing market makers to manipulate token supply on the RAVE, RIVER, SIREN and LAB tokens to the detriment of retail traders — an allegation reported via secondary sources and not independently confirmed by regulators.”
reviewerZachXBT accused Bitget of allowing market makers to manipulate token supply on RAVE, RIVER, SIREN and LAB tokens to the detriment of retail tradersConfirmed and appropriately hedged as an unregulated allegation. - #21[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Token Listing Disputes and Alleged Market Manipulation
“In May 2026 Bitget announced a 'market integrity and token accountability framework' aimed at strengthening pre-listing review and post-listing surveillance, an implicit acknowledgment of prior listing-related controversy.”
reviewerIn May 2026 Bitget announced a 'market integrity and token accountability framework' to strengthen pre/post-listing reviewConfirmed; the 'implicit acknowledgment' framing is reasonable editorializing rather than a factual overstatement. - #22[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Proof of Reserves Program
“As of the September 2026 update (its 46th issue), Bitget reported an aggregate reserve ratio of 135% and expanded asset coverage from 4 to 19 assets.”
reviewerBitget's September 2026 PoR update (46th issue) reported an aggregate reserve ratio of 135% and expanded coverage from 4 to 19 assetsConfirmed directly from the primary (official) source, noting official self-reported figures are inherently non-independent (addressed by the section's own caveats).
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.