What Did ZachXBT Allege About Bitget?
Blockchain investigator ZachXBT has intensified his criticism of Bitget, publicly naming founder Shawn Liu as the exchange’s real decision-maker while describing CEO Gracy Chen as the public face of the company.
In posts on X, the pseudonymous investigator alleged that Liu has overseen Bitget operations behind the scenes for years and allowed scam activity and market manipulation to occur on the platform. He also described a broader group of exchanges as a “Chinese CEX cartel,” accusing them of operating without real accountability.
Neither Bitget nor Liu has publicly responded to the allegations. Chen has also not answered ZachXBT’s separate call for centralized exchanges to freeze market maker profits and return funds to affected users when manipulation is identified.
Why Is the LAB Token Central to the Claims?
The latest accusations center partly on trading in the LAB token, which rose more than 350% within 72 hours in early May. ZachXBT cited on-chain data showing that wallets linked to the LAB project moved about 96 million tokens, worth roughly $63 million at the time, onto Bitget before the price surge.
He described the transfers as consistent with pre-positioning before a coordinated pump. He also named LAB founder Vova Sadkov, known online as “vsadkovv,” as the alleged architect of the scheme and offered a $10,000 bounty for information that can prove manipulation tied to the token.
The claims have not been confirmed by regulators, and ZachXBT has not yet released a full forensic report linking Bitget executives to specific conduct.
Investor Takeaway
What Does This Say About Centralized Exchange Risk?
The dispute highlights a recurring issue in crypto markets: centralized exchanges can profit from high-volume token trading even when price action later draws manipulation claims. Trading fees rise during periods of extreme volatility, creating a commercial incentive that may conflict with user protection.
Exchanges usually present themselves as neutral marketplaces, but listing standards, surveillance tools, and market maker relationships determine whether suspicious activity is stopped or allowed to continue.
The lack of unified rules across jurisdictions adds to the problem. Many exchanges serve global users while operating through complex corporate structures, making it difficult for one regulator to review cross-border trading activity or enforce uniform market abuse standards.
Investor Takeaway
What Happens Next?
ZachXBT has built credibility through previous blockchain investigations involving wallet tracing, stolen funds, and exploit-linked transactions. His past work included analysis of funds linked to the Lazarus Group and major hacks such as the Ronin Bridge attack.
For now, the Bitget claims remain unverified. The next step depends on whether more transaction data, internal records, or third-party evidence emerges to support the allegations.
If more evidence is released, Bitget could face deeper scrutiny over token listings, market maker conduct, and internal controls. Without further data, the dispute may remain part of the wider debate over transparency and accountability at centralized crypto exchanges.
