Bitget Faces Scrutiny After VOXEL Trading Surge Triggers Industry-Wide Concerns

Bot Misfire or Market Exploit? VOXEL Volume on Bitget Overtakes Bitcoin, Igniting Debate

Bitget is once again under the microscope following an unprecedented trading anomaly involving the VOXEL/USDT perpetual futures contract that saw its 24-hour volume spike to $12.72 billion—over 2.6 times higher than Bitcoin’s $4.76 billion volume on the same platform. 

The surge occurred on April 20, 2025, and was driven by what many suspect to be a misfiring bot or a poorly configured market-making algorithm. The price of VOXEL soared by more than 138% intraday, reaching $0.1645 before sharply correcting to $0.07514, which still marked a 30% premium over its pre-incident value.

Traders quickly capitalized on the apparent vulnerability, executing highly profitable trades within the $0.125 to $0.138 price band. Reports emerged that some individuals used as little as $100 to generate six-figure returns, exploiting low liquidity conditions in a token that had a market cap of around $23 million and 79% of its 300 million supply already in circulation. The lack of latency in trade execution, described by observers as “instant,” raised further questions about whether traditional order book mechanics had been bypassed or distorted.

Community analysts, including crypto researcher Dylan (@0xdy_eth), pointed to errant trading bots or auto-market maker faults as the likely cause. Trader Qingshui went so far as to label the strategy a “zero-cost” high-leverage arbitrage exploit, likening it to free money for those fast enough to spot and act on the opening. Bitget, for its part, has not verified whether bot activity was the root cause but maintained that all trades involved external accounts and were not generated by the exchange itself.

In response, Bitget temporarily suspended trading, deposits, and withdrawals for accounts flagged in connection with the incident. Trade reversals were initiated, and the company activated its $300 million Protection Fund to compensate users who suffered losses. CEO Gracy Chen assured users that Bitget remained financially capable of covering any outstanding liabilities, stating that the protection fund was “more than sufficient” to handle such incidents. Xie Jiayin, Head of Asia at Bitget, added that affected users faced temporary restrictions and that all core functionalities were restored within 24 hours, stressing that the platform was “operating normally.”

Still, the exchange’s crisis management drew sharp criticism. Some users, including @Cody_DeFi, slammed the firm’s conduct as “immature, unethical, and unprofessional,” arguing that Bitget’s actions resulted in unnecessary user losses. 

Others shifted blame from opportunistic traders to Bitget’s opaque market maker structure, highlighting the platform’s reluctance to disclose which institutional counterparties were involved, citing confidentiality clauses.

The controversy is amplified by Bitget’s previous criticisms of rival exchange Hyperliquid over its JELLY token exploit, where a similar market dislocation led to accusations of unethical behavior. Bitget had condemned Hyperliquid for lacking proper controls, a statement now seen as ironic given the VOXEL incident’s scale. Comparisons also emerged with Binance, which recently dealt with manipulation claims involving GPS and SHELL tokens. Unlike Bitget, Binance moved swiftly to identify and remove the market maker responsible, even seizing assets for user compensation.

VOXEL’s blow-up arrives at a time when overall trading activity in the crypto market is flagging. As of April 20, centralized exchange volumes plummeted to $32 billion—down 75% from the $132 billion peak in December 2024. Spot ETF activity is also down, with Bitcoin ETF volumes hitting a low of $1.55 billion and Ethereum ETFs slumping to $178.76 million. The spot-to-futures ratio now stands at just 0.19 for BTC and 0.20 for ETH, indicating a speculative tilt in trading strategies. Even so, Solana has bucked the trend somewhat, grabbing 70% of crypto app revenue on a single day in April, suggesting emerging divergences across ecosystems.

Bitget’s global market maker program boasts over 1,000 institutional clients, yet its silence on who may have facilitated the VOXEL trades has only deepened the debate around accountability and transparency. Critics have pointed to systemic risks tied to loan-based liquidity provision models, where market makers allegedly suppress token prices to reacquire at discounts, undermining investor trust. While Bitget has promised compensation and system reviews, questions remain about whether the current exchange architecture is equipped to prevent such exploits in the future.

This article has been refined and enhanced by ChatGPT.