Bitget’s $12B VOXEL frenzy fizzled fast, but questions remain

A little-known VOXEL trading pair on cryptocurrency exchange Bitget suddenly clocked over $12 billion in volume on April 20, dwarfing the metrics of the same contract on Binance.

The activity centered on VOXEL/USDT perpetual futures, where traders reported instant order fills — an anomaly many described as a bug that allowed savvy traders to rack up outsized profits by exploiting unusual price behavior.

The atypical metrics drew Bitget’s attention. In the fallout of its early investigation, the exchange suspended accounts suspected of market manipulation and rolled back irregular trades that occurred throughout the day. Traders who copped losses during that period were offered compensation.

Bitget’s response and remediation plan may have prevented lasting investor damage, but the episode is the latest in a series of cases that raise questions about how exchanges handle market makers, internal systems and user safeguards. While Bitget promotes an open API and regularly touts its global market maker program, it has yet to disclose who was behind the April 20 activity or what technical factors led to it.

The lack of incident-level detail has fueled speculations comparable to similar breakdowns on Binance — the world’s largest exchange by trading volume — that included the sudden price crashes of cryptocurrencies GoPlus (GPS) and MyShell (SHELL) in March. Binance kicked out an unnamed market maker it found responsible for manipulation, but the lack of disclosure added fuel to the crypto industry’s infamous rumor mongering.

Crypto market participants pointed to rapid price fluctuations and what multiple Mandarin-language X accounts described as a bug in a “market maker” bot as the cause of VOXEL’s excessive volume.

Traders claimed that VOXEL’s price flickered between several ranges, such as $0.125 and $0.138. Orders placed between those bands filled instantly due to the suspected bug, X user Dylan said, sharing screenshots and videos of profitable accounts. Perpetual futures contracts are typically matched through an order book, with each trade requiring a counterparty. But in this case, trades appeared to execute automatically and without delay.

Traders who spotted the suspected bug early used high-leverage bets to boost their profits, X user Qingshui said, calling the strategy a “zero-cost exploit.” Like Dylan, Qingshui attributed the issue to a market maker bot misfiring and questioned why traders were blocked from accessing profits if the problem originated from Bitget’s side.

Related: How Mantra’s OM token collapsed in 24 hours of chaos

A third user, Hebi555, pointed the finger at Bitget’s market-making team for its poor performance. Xie Jiayin, Bitget’s head of Asia, clapped back, stating that the exchange works with over 1,000 market makers and institutional clients. He added that Bitget’s API is open to the public and emphasized that specific market maker identities could not be disclosed due to confidentiality agreements.

In an April 20 response to Cointelegraph, Bitget CEO Gracy Chen said that suspicious trades were between individual market participants, not the platform. Replying to Cointelegraph’s follow-up inquiry on April 21, Chen neither confirmed nor denied whether a market maker bot was involved, only reiterating that the trading was “between users.”

“We are conducting a thorough review, and once the rollback is completed, trading and account restrictions will be lifted as appropriate. Bitget’s security infrastructure is designed to catch irregularities like this in real time — as it did in this case,” Chen said.

Concerns over market manipulation in the cryptocurrency industry have been intensifying. In early March, the prices of two tokens, GPS and SHELL, crashed in tandem with their Binance listings. 

The exchange’s investigation found that the two tokens employed the same unnamed market maker. Binance banished the dubious trading firm from its platform and confiscated its proceeds to help fund compensation efforts for GPS and SHELL traders. Without a suspect to blame, social media users began pointing fingers at several market makers and trading firms. Those named denied any involvement.

Binance then kicked out another unnamed market maker, this time for trading activities related to the Movement (MOVE) token. The MOVE token’s market maker on Binance was found to have associations with the market maker for GPS and SHELL.

Related: Market maker deals are quietly killing crypto projects

A recent Cointelegraph report found that market makers are employing a loan-based model that is killing off small- and medium-cap projects. The loan model gives market makers access to a project’s tokens in exchange for liquidity provision. But instead, what often happens is that market makers dump the loaned tokens on the open market just to buy them back at a cheaper price, leaving the projects with damaged price charts.

Both Bitget and Binance’s cases show that even the largest centralized exchanges (CEXs) aren’t immune to market manipulation or traders exploiting platforms for profits.

But a recent case on decentralized exchange (DEX) Hyperliquid shows the issue isn’t confined to CEXs. In late March, a whale allegedly exploited the liquidation parameters on Hyperliquid, resulting in the delisting of the platform’s JELLY perpetual futures product. Hyperliquid then announced a compensation plan for affected users, similar to how Bitget responded to its own VOXEL drama.

Ironically, Bitget’s Chen had some strong words against Hyperliquid at the time, raising concerns about the network’s centralization. She compared the DEX to FTX, once a billion-dollar trading firm whose founder is now serving a 25-year prison sentence for multiple counts of fraud.

“The way it handled the JELLY incident was immature, unethical, and unprofessional, triggering user losses and casting serious doubts over its integrity. Despite presenting itself as an innovative decentralized exchange with a bold vision, Hyperliquid operates more like an offshore CEX with no [Know-Your-Customer/Anti-Money Laundering], enabling illicit flows and bad actors,” she said.

Bitget’s VOXEL episode may have been contained, and Hyperliquid’s users may be compensated, but the broader pattern is harder to ignore for traders. As platforms scramble to maintain trust, the industry’s vulnerability isn’t just the bugs or exploits, but the silence that follows them.

Magazine: Uni students crypto ‘grooming’ scandal, 67K scammed by fake women: Asia Express