Blockchain investigator ZachXBT has raised serious concerns regarding the operations of the cryptocurrency exchange Bitget, alleging that founder Shawn Liu is the real decision-maker behind the scenes while CEO Gracy Chen serves merely as the public face of the company. In a series of posts on the platform X, ZachXBT accused Liu of overseeing Bitget’s operations for years and enabling a range of scam activities and market manipulation on the platform. He expanded his critique to encompass a broader network of exchanges, dubbing them a “Chinese CEX cartel” and asserting that they operate without proper accountability.
As of now, neither Bitget nor Liu has responded to these allegations, and Gracy Chen has not addressed ZachXBT’s separate request for centralized exchanges to freeze profits earned by market makers and return lost funds to affected users in cases of manipulation.
The controversy primarily revolves around the trading activity related to the LAB token, which skyrocketed by over 350% within 72 hours earlier this month. ZachXBT referenced on-chain data indicating that wallets associated with the LAB project transferred roughly 96 million tokens—valued at around $63 million into Bitget—just before the price surge. He claimed this pattern indicated pre-positioning consistent with a coordinated pump, and named LAB founder Vova Sadkov, known online as “vsadkovv,” as the alleged mastermind behind the manipulation. To incentivize information sharing, ZachXBT has placed a $10,000 bounty for anyone who can provide proof of manipulation linked to the LAB token.
Investor caution is warranted as thinly traded tokens pose heightened risks, especially when significant wallet movements precede sharp price shifts. Centralized exchanges’ monitoring practices, listing criteria, and oversight of market makers are crucial risk factors that can impact retail investors.
This ongoing dispute underscores a persistent challenge facing the cryptocurrency market: centralized exchanges can continue to benefit from high-volume trading—even when concerns of price manipulation arise. During periods of extreme volatility, trading fees surge, creating an incentive structure that may clash with the responsibilities of user protection. While exchanges typically portray themselves as neutral marketplaces, their listing standards, surveillance tools, and relationships with market makers play a key role in determining whether suspicious activities are investigated or ignored. The lack of uniform regulations across different jurisdictions adds complexity, as many exchanges operate internationally through intricate corporate setups, complicating the ability of regulators to oversee cross-border trading practices effectively.
As pressure mounts for centralized exchanges to improve token listing quality and enhance market surveillance, those that fail to adequately address manipulation risks could suffer reputational damage even before any formal regulatory actions are taken.
ZachXBT has established himself as a credible figure in the blockchain investigative community, previously focusing on tracing wallets, stolen funds, and transactions linked to high-profile exploits such as the Lazarus Group and the Ronin Bridge attack. At this stage, the claims against Bitget remain unverified, and the trajectory of the investigation will depend on whether additional transaction data, internal records, or third-party information surfaces in support of the allegations. If new evidence emerges, Bitget may find itself under intensified scrutiny regarding its token listings, market maker practices, and internal controls. Without further corroborating data, the dispute may persist as part of the broader dialogue surrounding the need for greater transparency and accountability at centralized cryptocurrency exchanges.
