Bitget's VOXEL Meltdown

Turns out, market-making bots don't always print money... especially for the ones who built them.

Bitget's VOXEL/USDT pair transformed from crypto backwater to arbitrage paradise when a rogue algorithm started buying high and selling low every three seconds like clockwork.

Quick-fingered traders allegedly drained $100+ million before Bitget hit the kill switch, freezing accounts and rolling back trades faster than you could say "terms of service violation."

Some lucky gamblers escaped with millions in withdrawals while others watched helplessly as their fat profits evaporated into "market manipulation" accusations.

Now Bitget's CEO, Gracy Chen- who once publicly roasted competitors for similar reversals - finds herself serving the same damage control casserole to an increasingly skeptical audience.

In a market built on immutability, how many COINTROLs+Z can you press before users stop trusting the undo button?

You wake up on April 20th. VOXEL, a metaverse token normally trading with all the excitement of watching paint dry - is suddenly pumping harder than a hedge fund manager's heart rate during a margin call.

Behind the chaos?

Bitget's rogue market-making bot having a full mechanical breakdown - trapped in a degenerate's dream loop of buying low and selling high every three seconds with Swiss watch regularity.

Sharp-eyed traders spotted the pattern and pounced. Leveraged positions turned pocket change into retirement funds as the bot's predictable oscillations created a real-life money glitch.

Trading volume for this obscure token skyrocketed to $12.7 billion in 24 hours - surpassing even Bitcoin's trading activity on the platform.

Some users walked away with millions before the hammer dropped.

One trader reportedly gained $42 million, while another flipped $100 into $3 million faster than a VC fundraising round.

Bitget eventually froze the bleeding, but not before their protection fund took a nine-figure hit.

Now they're scrambling to frame regular traders as market manipulators while selectively rolling back transactions.

When your exchange's algorithm becomes its own worst enemy, who deserves the blame—the bot, the builders, or the traders who noticed first?

The Perfect Storm

Bitget's VOXEL disaster is a textbook example of how to design a trading system destined for failure.

Take one illiquid metaverse token, add leverage, remove position limits, sprinkle in zero sanity checks, and you've cooked up the perfect recipe for catastrophic failure.

The price oscillation wasn't subtle - VOXEL bounced between $0.125 and $0.138 with robotic precision.

For traders accustomed to hunting liquidity gaps, this wasn't just an opportunity - it was a flashing neon billboard advertising free money.

While the exact amount drained remains cloudy, estimates suggest north of $100 million vanished before Bitget could slam their emergency brakes.

Their 24-hour trading volume on a token outside the top 700 by market cap briefly eclipsed their Bitcoin pairs - a red flag brighter than a nuclear meltdown warning light.

Bitget's response dropped faster than their VOXEL support: freeze suspect accounts, reverse completed trades, and roll out the classic "abnormal trading activity" public relations playbook.

Users who managed to withdraw their profits before the crackdown are sleeping soundly.

Those caught mid-celebration with frozen accounts have joined crypto's most bitter club - victims of the dreaded retroactive rule change.

When exchanges can rewrite trading history on a whim, is your profit ever really yours until it hits your cold wallet?

The Irony Exchange

Bitget’s CEO, Gracy Chen, publicly roasted Hyperliquid just weeks ago over their trade rollbacks, calling them unprofessional and unethical - basically dubbing them a “decentralized exchange in name only.”

Now, Gracy’s defending the same playbook after Bitget’s own bot caused chaos.

From “how dare they reverse trades” to “we're reversing trades for market integrity” in record time. Same shit, different toilet.

Bitget’s official statement hit with all the subtlety of a sledgehammer: "Certain accounts potentially engaged in market manipulation."

The irony? The bot spent half an hour buying high and selling low on repeat.

When hypocrisy becomes company policy, how long before users start looking for the exit?

Community Backlash

Bitget's sentiment cratered like a plane plummeting after an engine failure.

Users flooded Twitter with frozen account screenshots while early birds who cashed out watched the drama unfold from their newly-purchased yachts.

Critics zeroed in on Bitget's closed market-making system that blocks third-party liquidity providers - pointing to this walled garden as the exploit's ground zero.

The FTX comparisons weren't far behind: "Bitget may be the next FTX!!"

While dramatic, the comparison hits different in an industry where billion-dollar exchanges can vaporize overnight.

When centralized exchanges act as both market makers and supervisors, who's watching the watchmen - and more importantly, who's coding their trading bots?

Damage Control Theater

Even as the story broke, Bitget was already pruning critics and spinning narratives.

Their rescue plan?

Crack open the $300 million protection fund and pray traders have goldfish memories.

The irony of having a massive protection fund while neglecting basic bot safeguards wasn't lost on the community.

All the financial insurance in the world can't fix a trading engine that buys high and sells low by design.

The official notice was pure corporate copium: "To ensure a fair and secure trading environment, Bitget will initiate a rollback of irregular trades within 24 hours."

Translation: We're unilaterally deciding which trades were "irregular" despite our own systems executing and confirming them all.

Their compensation plan arrived gift-wrapped in bureaucracy - users who lost money during the glitch window could "contact Bitget's official support and submit a ticket for further assistance."

Nothing says "we value your business" quite like making victims fill out forms after your bot goes haywire.

Meanwhile, the exchange's technical explanations grew more suspicious with each iteration.

What started as "abnormal trading activity" morphed into "potential market manipulation," before finally landing on "a bot bug in the VOXEL/USDT pair created endless arbitrage loops."

The reality? Their market-making bot missed the memo on Algorithmic Trading 101: don't buy high and sell low in an infinite loop.

Gracy's social media damage control campaign pushed all the right corporate buzzwords - "actively managing the incident," "restoring access," and "strengthening risk control systems."

But between the lines lurked an uncomfortable truth: they'd built a CEX without circuit breakers, position limits, or basic sanity checks on their own market-making algorithms.

While compensation flows to affected users, the deeper questions remain buried under settlement agreements and PR statements.

How many other pairs on Bitget run on similar code?

What other market-making bots are one bug away from turning user funds into arbitrage piñatas?

In crypto's eternal conflict between "code is law" and "we reserve the right to change everything," Bitget just demonstrated which philosophy wins when hundreds of millions hang in the balance.

Hint: it's not the one carved into blockchain manifestos.

The exchange's damage control strategy did a complete 180 - from blaming users for "manipulation" to offering compensation from their $300 million protection fund.

Nothing says "we screwed up" quite like throwing money at the problem after accusing your customers of wrongdoing.

While Gracy, Bitget's representative, publicly promised to "strengthen risk control systems" and introduce "additional safeguards," the crypto community wasn't buying what she was selling.

Trust, once fractured, doesn't regenerate with a tweet and a checkbook.

Centralized exchanges playing both referee and player create systemic risks no insurance fund can cover.

The house always changes the rules when it loses... but how many more nine-figure incidents before users wake up?

REKT serves as a public platform for anonymous authors, we take no responsibility for the views or content hosted on REKT.

donate (ETH / ERC20): 0x3C5c2F4bCeC51a36494682f91Dbc6cA7c63B514C

disclaimer:

REKT is not responsible or liable in any manner for any Content posted on our Website or in connection with our Services, whether posted or caused by ANON Author of our Website, or by REKT. Although we provide rules for Anon Author conduct and postings, we do not control and are not responsible for what Anon Author post, transmit or share on our Website or Services, and are not responsible for any offensive, inappropriate, obscene, unlawful or otherwise objectionable content you may encounter on our Website or Services. REKT is not responsible for the conduct, whether online or offline, of any user of our Website or Services.