On April 20, Bitget, a popular cryptocurrency exchange, detected some irregular trading patterns on its VOXEL/USDT perpetual futures contract. This unusual activity occurred between the hours of 8:00 and 8:30 UST, prompting the platform to take immediate action by suspending accounts that were suspected of engaging in market manipulation.
Following this incident, Bitget issued an announcement detailing their response and the steps they planned to take. They indicated that they would roll back trades made by the accounts suspected of manipulation within a 24-hour timeframe, effectively retracting any gains earned through those trades. This swift action was aimed at maintaining the integrity of the platform and ensuring a fair trading environment for all users.
Gracy Chen, the CEO of Bitget, later provided clarification to Cointelegraph, noting that the suspicious trades were conducted solely between individual market participants rather than being a result of any actions taken by the exchange itself. She emphasized that the situation did not affect the platform as a whole, assuring users that their funds remained secure despite the turmoil in trading activity.
During that brief period, the VOXEL-USDT perpetual futures contract experienced an astonishing spike, surging over 138% in a single day. Such significant volatility naturally raised concerns within the trading community about the dynamics of market behaviors, especially concerning the potential for manipulation.
In light of the losses incurred by some users due to the alleged irregular trading activity, Bitget announced plans to compensate those affected. Gracy Chen confirmed to Cointelegraph that the exchange would soon unveil a compensation strategy to address the financial impact on its users. She stated that Bitget was fully equipped to handle any residual losses through their robust $300 million protection fund, underscoring the exchange’s commitment to safeguarding user assets against various risks.
The incident has sparked a broader discussion around the responsibilities of cryptocurrency exchanges when faced with unusual trading activities and technical glitches. Some traders have drawn parallels between the recent Bitget situation and another notable incident from the past, specifically the Hyperliquid-Jelly exploit that took place in March 2025.
To provide context, the Hyperliquid incident involved a trader who managed to exploit the price of the Jelly-my-Jelly (JELLY) memecoin. By engaging in a highly leveraged strategy that included both a long position and a corresponding short position, the price of JELLY skyrocketed by over 400%, ultimately leading to the liquidation of short positions. The sheer size of one trader’s position resulted in complications that saw trades being sent through the Hyperliquidity Provider Vault (HLP).
Following that chaotic trading episode, Hyperliquid made the controversial decision to delist the JELLY perpetual contracts, a move that drew intense criticism from the cryptocurrency community. Many perceived the delisting as a failure on Hyperliquid’s part to uphold the principles of market integrity and trust that are essential in financial exchanges.
Gracy Chen, a vocal opponent of Hyperliquid’s decision to delist JELLY, argued that such actions adversely affected users by forcing settlements at prices that were not favorable. She expressed her concerns about the potential precedent this could set, emphasizing that trust is the foundational element of any exchange rather than merely financial capital. In a post made on X, she stated, “The decision to close the JELLY market and force settlement of positions at a favorable price sets a dangerous precedent. Trust—not capital—is the foundation of any exchange.”
The incident at Bitget, while seemingly isolated, has reignited conversations about exchange practices in the face of unusual trading behaviors and the ethical implications of their decisions. How exchanges manage such situations can have far-reaching implications for user trust and the overall health of the cryptocurrency ecosystem.
As the cryptocurrency market continues to evolve, the expectations surrounding exchanges also grow. Traders are increasingly looking for assurance that their funds are secure, and that exchanges will uphold fairness during turbulent trading episodes. The response of Bitget to the recent situation indicates a growing awareness of these responsibilities and the need for exchanges to act decisively and transparently when market anomalies arise.
Ultimately, the cryptocurrency community’s dialogue on trust, accountability, and responsibility is crucial as the ecosystem matures. With events like those experienced by Bitget and Hyperliquid, both users and exchanges must navigate the challenges that come with the inherent volatility and unpredictability of digital asset trading. The lessons learned from recent incidents will undoubtedly influence how exchanges formulate their governance structures to ensure user security and fairness in the long run.
With the evolution of cryptocurrency trading, the dialogue surrounding issues of market integrity and user trust continues to be paramount. The incidents that occur on platforms like Bitget and Hyperliquid serve not only as specific cases but also as touchstones for ongoing discussions about how to effectively regulate and manage trading in a rapidly changing landscape. Moving forward, the industry will be closely watching how exchanges balance the dual goals of ensuring user satisfaction while maintaining market order amidst an often turbulent trading environment.