Skip to main content
AVOID.NET
← XT Exchangereviewed 2026-10-27 · 9 claims checked

Fact-check findings

What an automated fact-checker found when it re-read XT Exchange 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 4partially supported 1confirmed 40 corrections pending · 0 applied

unverifiable

4 claims

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

  1. #3[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: November 2024 Security Breach
    “XT.com suspended all withdrawals on the platform for approximately 12 hours.”
    reviewerWithdrawals suspended for approximately 12 hoursDuration not found in two sources. Other cited articles (Cointelegraph, BeInCrypto, CryptoSlate) were not fetched, so they may support it.
    citedwww.halborn.com/blog/post/explained-the-…ck-november-2024www.coindesk.com/business/2024/11/28/cry…hacked-for-1-7-m
  2. #7[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in the timeline
    “2026-04-09”
    reviewerSeychelles FSA notice dated 2026-04-09An FSA alert about xt.com exists, but its date could not be confirmed. The timeline entry also says 'under the Virtual Asset Service Providers Act', which the alert wording I saw does not mention. Page cites only a generic listing URL.
    citedfsaseychelles.sc/media-corner/regulatory-updates
  3. #8[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: Account Freezing and Asset Seizure Complaints
    “As of May 2026, the platform holds a 2.1/5 rating on Trustpilot with the majority of reviews being 1-star”
    reviewerTrustpilot rating 2.1/5 as of May 2026Trustpilot is a bot-walled source and its score moves over time. A search snippet suggests about 1.5 now, so the 2.1 figure may be stale.
    citedwww.trustpilot.com/review/xt.com
  4. #9[unverifiable][awaiting moderator]in section: KYC, Compliance, and AML Concerns
    “AVOID.NET's intake records indicate that ZachXBT, the on-chain investigator known for exposing fraud and theft in the crypto ecosystem, flagged XT Exchange as a concern.”
    reviewerZachXBT flagged XT ExchangeThe page itself says no direct citation was found. The cited sources are generic channel and profile URLs. Recommend removing the section or the generic URLs.
    citedt.me/s/investigationsx.com/zachxbt

partially supported

1 claim

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

  1. #2[partially supported][awaiting moderator]in section: November 2024 Security Breach
    “The attack vector was a compromised private key that granted the attacker unauthorized access to the platform's hot wallet infrastructure.”
    reviewerAttack vector was a compromised private key; 12 token types converted to 461.58 ETHHalborn frames the key compromise as the likely cause, not established fact. The summary also states it flatly. CoinDesk gives no cause.
    citedwww.halborn.com/blog/post/explained-the-…ck-november-2024

confirmed

4 claims

The cited evidence supports the claim as written.

  1. #1[confirmed][no action needed]in section: November 2024 Security Breach
    “On November 28, 2024, XT.com suffered a security exploit in which approximately $1.7 million in cryptocurrency was stolen from the exchange's hot wallets.”
    reviewerXT.com was hacked on Nov 28, 2024 for about $1.7M, first identified by PeckShieldCoinDesk confirms date, amount, PeckShield and the reserve figures.
    citedwww.coindesk.com/business/2024/11/28/cry…hacked-for-1-7-m
  2. #4[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Regulatory Warnings and Unlicensed Operations
    “The UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) issued a warning on March 25, 2025”
    reviewerUK FCA warning dated March 25, 2025Matches the FCA page.
    citedwww.fca.org.uk/news/warnings/xtcom
  3. #5[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Regulatory Warnings and Unlicensed Operations
    “Dubai's Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority (VARA) issued a Consumer and Marketplace Alert on November 29, 2024”
    reviewerVARA alert dated Nov 29, 2024Date and substance confirmed; verbatim quotes in the page were not individually verified.
    citedwww.vara.ae/en/regulations/regulatory-no…tplace-alert-xt/
  4. #6[confirmed][no action needed]in section: Regulatory Warnings and Unlicensed Operations
    “filed charges against XT.com with the Economic Crime Suppression Division and requested the Ministry of Digital Affairs block access to the platform effective June 28, 2025”
    reviewerThai SEC filed charges May 30, 2025 and block effective June 28, 2025Supported by CoinDesk. The timeline entry says the block happened on 2025-06-28; the source only says it was scheduled to start, so actual enforcement is unconfirmed.
    citedwww.coindesk.com/policy/2025/05/30/thail…-lack-of-license
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.