On-chain browser screenshots show that an address labeled "HTX 48" transferred small amounts ranging from 3 to 10 USDT to multiple external addresses in a short period, including a transfer of 7.5 USDT; the screenshots cannot independently prove that the address is actually controlled by HTX.

Netizens claim that their Coinbase address received a suspected 7.5 USDT from this address and were asked by Coinbase to explain the source of the funds, or face account closure risks; this claim currently comes only from personal social media statements, and Coinbase and HTX have not publicly confirmed it.

Another netizen showed multiple records of 0.00 USDT credited to their platform account on August 17, claiming that the platform stated it would assist in intercepting the funds; the screenshot did not display the sender's address, on-chain transaction hash, or the original response from platform customer service.

Zero or very small token transfers are often referred to as "address pollution" or "address poisoning": attackers exploit user transaction records to create records that resemble commonly used receiving addresses or can be mistakenly copied, misleading victims into sending assets to incorrect addresses in subsequent transfers.

However, the existing screenshots show multiple real USDT transfers of different amounts, rather than typical zero transfers or counterfeit token incidents; whether this constitutes address poisoning, the purpose of the transactions, and whether they were initiated by HTX or entities related to Sun Yuchen cannot be verified solely based on the screenshots.

From a market mechanism perspective, small transfers do not change the private key control of the receiving address and cannot directly steal wallet assets; risks occur when users rely on transaction history to copy addresses and neglect complete verification. If centralized exchanges trigger anti-money laundering reviews due to unfamiliar deposits, affected users may also face account explanations, proof of fund sources, or temporary risk control restrictions. The real pressure is on ordinary users who rely on address books and transaction history, as well as compliance teams that need to handle abnormal deposits.

Source: Public Information