In the wake of President Donald Trump’s announcement regarding new tariffs, cryptocurrency markets experienced a significant downturn, with Binance emerging as a central player amid the tumult. Known widely as a critical liquidity engine for the industry, Binance faced intense scrutiny as its cross-margin system exacerbated losses for many traders. This system ties all assets in a user’s account as collateral, resulting in a situation where a single margin call could lead to total account liquidation rather than just partial losses.
As cryptocurrency prices fell sharply, users reported that the Binance interface froze during the sell-off, preventing them from executing trades to either close or hedge their positions. This structural flaw led to an outpouring of frustration and accusations directed at Binance, with many alleging that the exchange was profiting from the chaos through liquidation fees.
One user’s pointed criticism encapsulated the sentiment: “You keep cross margin as the default because it feeds your liquidation engine. One system freeze and traders lose everything, while you collect the fees.” Despite Binance’s subsequent promise of compensation for those adversely affected, the lack of a detailed post-incident report from the exchange fueled speculation about the nature of the market crash.
A notable analysis from on-chain researcher YQ raised questions about whether the sell-off was entirely organic. The findings indicated that three assets listed on Binance—USDe, wBETH, and BNSOL—experienced dramatic losses just minutes apart during an internal pricing update. Specifically, USDe plummeted to $0.65, wBETH dropped to $430 (nearly 90% below Ethereum’s value), and BNSOL fell to $34.9. YQ suggested that the timing of these events indicated a potential sequence of coordinated trades rather than random market panic, estimating that such actions could have extracted between $800 million and $1.2 billion from the market.
While definitive proof of coordination remains elusive, the evidence presented suggests a suspicious alignment of events that could point to either opportunistic exploitation or planned manipulation. “The precision, timing, venue-specificity, and profit patterns align too perfectly with what a coordinated attack would look like,” the analyst concluded.
Parallel to the events occurring on Binance, fresh analyses indicated that Coinbase, the largest cryptocurrency exchange in the U.S., also engaged in significant transactions just prior to the downturn. Blockchain data showed that Coinbase transferred 1,066 BTC from a cold wallet to a hot wallet shortly before the price declines began. Around the same time, a newly created wallet believed to belong to a U.S. investor bought 1,100 BTC from Binance and transferred it to Coinbase.
These actions raised suspicions, particularly because Coinbase typically handles large institutional trades rather than retail orders. Such transactions are often orchestrated discreetly through over-the-counter desks, typically catering to entities like ETF issuers, hedge funds, or corporate treasuries interested in purchasing Bitcoin without impacting market prices. The timing of these movements coincided ominously with growing selling pressure in the market, leading analysts to note that selling large quantities in this manner is challenging for retail traders.
Despite the lack of concrete evidence linking the events at Binance and Coinbase, the coordinated timing of the wallet activities and subsequent market impact has only intensified speculation that the crash may not have been mere coincidence.
