OpenGradient Co-founder: BitMart May Be Insolvent, Market Making Funds Locked
Matthew, co-founder of OpenGradient, stated that his market-making team's funds on the BitMart exchange are currently inaccessible, suspecting that the reason is related to the platform's insolvency. He claimed that BitMart continued to promote user asset locking a week before announcing an "orderly shutdown," describing it as an operation aimed at "draining liquidity."
On July 26, BitMart announced it would orderly cease operations by January 31, 2027, and promised to keep withdrawal channels open during the liquidation period. However, on-chain data and user feedback indicate that large withdrawal requests are being processed very slowly, with multiple users and project parties claiming that funds ranging from millions to tens of millions of dollars cannot be withdrawn. Data providers like Lookonchain noted that there were almost no successful withdrawal records during certain periods after the announcement, and large withdrawals over $25,000 have nearly come to a halt.
Matthew revealed that his market-making team's balance on BitMart is also stuck, with withdrawal requests not being executed. He expressed further dissatisfaction that BitMart continued to encourage token projects and users to lock assets on the platform with high APY and staking activities just a week before the shutdown announcement. He believes this behavior of first absorbing locked liquidity and then announcing a shutdown is highly suspicious, essentially "squeezing user funds" during a liquidity crunch.
BitMart has not yet responded in detail to the accusations of "insolvency" and "locking liquidity." Founder Sheldon previously denied allegations of being unreachable and misappropriating assets, stating that the core team is conducting an asset inventory and considering involving judicial institutions and independent audits to disclose asset status and exit arrangements. However, with the obstacles to withdrawals, internal employee leaks, and public accusations from market makers, market trust in the platform's solvency and asset custody security has significantly weakened.
This incident has reinforced three risk concerns regarding centralized exchanges at the community level: first, the mixing of user and platform assets could lead to hidden insolvency; second, locking assets and high APY activities close to business adjustments pose moral hazards of "absorbing last liquidity under the guise of returns"; third, even with an "orderly exit" announcement, the actual speed and transparency of withdrawal execution are key to assessing the platform's true health. For market makers, project parties, and high-net-worth users, keeping large amounts of funds in a single exchange, participating in locking activities, and relying on platform promises are being reassessed as high-risk behaviors.
Source: Public Information
ABAB AI Insight
BitMart's exit strategy is not a typical hacker incident or regulatory crackdown, but a gradual exit under the guise of "orderly termination of operations." The announcement did not specify the exact reasons, only explaining the shutdown with vague terms like "operational conditions, market environment, and strategic direction assessment"; such ambiguous wording itself fails to provide users with sufficient confidence, as it can obscure liquidity issues, compliance pressures, or business failures.
The timing of the locking activities and the obstacles to withdrawals is a key structure in the current accusations. Locking itself is a common product for exchanges: by freezing assets, the platform can achieve more stable depth and fee income; however, during times of liquidity stress or weak capital structure, locking can turn into a means of exchanging high-yield promises for short-term funds, similar to high-interest deposits or structured products in traditional finance. Promoting locking activities just a week before BitMart's impending shutdown, followed by a halt in large withdrawals after the announcement, creates a strong impression of "last liquidity absorption."
The blockage of market maker funds is particularly significant. Market makers typically have deeper liquidity relationships with exchanges: they provide buy and sell depth, bear short-term position fluctuations, and profit through fee discounts, market-making rebates, or revenue sharing; if the platform is still unable to execute withdrawals at the time of exit, it indicates that the problem is not merely a risk control misjudgment, but may involve overall payment capability insufficiency or asset structure opacity. The public voices of market makers and high-net-worth users often represent that the structural repayment pressure within the platform can no longer be resolved through individual negotiations.
Historically, incidents involving Mt. Gox, QuadrigaCX, FTX, and some smaller exchanges have repeatedly proven that the safety of user assets on centralized platforms is influenced not only by technical risks but also by operational risk control, asset-liability management, and the quality of corporate governance. BitMart's current denial of asset misappropriation and commitment to audits indicates that the platform is attempting to restore some trust through information disclosure and external verification; however, until the withdrawal obstacles and locking disputes are resolved, users will become more conservative regarding any centralized exchange's fund concentration strategy.
This represents a re-emergence of the risk of capital concentration. Exchanges expand platform capital through locking and high APY in bull markets and high liquidity environments; once market liquidity contracts, regulations tighten, or their own balance sheets show gaps, user funds concentrated on the platform will become a buffer against shocks. In the future, the custody and liquidity management of crypto assets may shift more towards multi-custody, on-chain proof, risk diversification, and protocol-level insurance, rather than long-term capital absorption by a single centralized platform.
ABAB News · Cognitive Laws
High APY is often not a gift, but a signal of liquidity distress.
Custody safety is not determined by announcements, but by whether withdrawals can arrive on time.
Concentrated funds facilitate trading but also concentrate the opportunity to bear systemic risks.