In the recent VOXEL incident, the market maker qntxxx accepted an interview with Colin Wu. He stated that they profited 43 million USD through 100 sub-accounts at that time, withdrawing about 10 million USD, while Binance froze hundreds of thousands of USD. He expressed that they would not compromise, having already hired a lawyer, and believed that their profits (43 million USD) should belong to their team based on the principle of fair trading, rather than intentionally exploiting loopholes to attack BG's servers.

Bitget responded: These 8 accounts are suspected to be related to a professional profit-seeking group, which is the main instigator of the VOXEL incident, and they improperly profited over 20 million USD from it. The recovered funds will be distributed 100% to platform users in the form of airdrops. Apart from these 8 accounts, all other retail users who participated in VOXEL trading and withdrew funds between 16:00 and 16:30 on April 20 (approximately 19 million USD) will have their accounts restored to normal on Wednesday and will not be held accountable in the future.

The following is an interview with the accused market maker

Colin Wu: First, please introduce your history.

qntxxx: There are two of us on our team, and we started high-frequency trading in the crypto space at the beginning of 2022. However, we may not have been doing very well until the Luna crash incident. At that time, we were a contract market maker on Binance and made over 1 million USD in profit, then continued to market make on Binance until early 2024. In November last year, we began trying to market make on smaller exchanges like Bitget and Gate.

Colin Wu: Did BG not allow external contract market makers before?

qntxxx: There isn't an absolute rule; their spot liquidity isn't very good, so to apply for a contract market maker, you also need to apply for their spot market maker. We have been doing this since November 2024. Their official website has an application portal. Both individuals and institutions can apply to be market makers, and the threshold for approval is very low, requiring only some trading volume proof from other exchanges.

Colin Wu: Back to the core question, how did you discover this opportunity that day, and what strategy did you adopt?

qntxxx: The market wasn't very volatile; you can understand it as being in a sideways trend. Our strategy was to place many orders simultaneously, meaning we would trade many contracts at the same time. However, if a certain coin suddenly surged or plummeted, that was the most suitable scenario for us to profit from high-frequency trading. So, we needed to seize that opportunity, increasing the order amount and the number of trading sub-accounts.

qntxxx: At that time, we also manually noticed the coin VOXEL, which had a significant trading volume, so we were trading that coin. But we suddenly found that our profits were magnified, and we increased the number of trading sub-accounts to about 100.

qntxxx: A similar situation occurred during the Luna incident when we also traded with hundreds of accounts simultaneously. This time was actually similar to Luna. There was a chaotic situation with the K-line on the order book. The K-line during that period matched our profit-making strategy, leading to our profit of 43 million USD.

Colin Wu: BG said there are 20 million USD outside, so are there other market makers?

qntxxx: In the end, we withdrew about 10 million USD, and Binance froze hundreds of thousands of USD. There are definitely other market makers, but the time window was short. We received 9 lawyer letters, 2 of which were sent to us, and we don't know who sent the others. However, I believe the total amount withdrawn should be more than 20 million USD.

(BG responded: Before the risk control measures took effect, the abnormal profits withdrawn from the platform amounted to 38.31 million USDT. Apart from the approximately 20 million USDT of abnormal profits related to the aforementioned 8 accounts, all other withdrawn funds will not be pursued.)

There are just two of us managing three accounts. At that time, the trading volume on the order book surged dramatically, lasting possibly more than half an hour, and this coin had not triggered risk control, such as stopping trading. The accounts that made profits were initially frozen, but after two hours, they resumed withdrawals, and even that night and the next day, withdrawals were still possible.

qntxxx: I believe the essence of this matter is that BG's internal market makers lost to us on the order book. I think this falls under the principle of fair trading; we traded from the order book, not by intentionally exploiting loopholes or attacking BG's servers. We are engaged in fair trading, so I believe our profits (43 million USD) should belong to us.

Colin Wu: BG sent you a lawyer's letter; have you consulted a lawyer about this matter?

qntxxx: Yes, the lawyer advised us to sue their Singapore entity because they arbitrarily deducted funds. When they rolled back transactions, many ordinary users' accounts were all messed up, even including financial products that were all deducted. After the first rollback, many users reported discrepancies in their accounts because the exchange also included transaction fees, deducting more money from users.

(BG responded: The principle of rollback is to correct abnormal profits and losses, so users' principal and transaction fees will not incur losses. After the rollback is completed, we found that some users' transaction fees were incorrectly deducted, and the fees for the relevant accounts have been refunded. No user suffered losses of principal or transaction fees in this incident.)

Colin Wu: There are also views that if this is exploiting a bug in the exchange, similar to some bugs in banks, for example, if a bank inexplicably credited someone with several million, it might need to be returned according to the law.

qntxxx: Our stance is that BG has not publicly acknowledged that it has participated in being the counterparty to users, meaning they have not admitted to being an official contract market maker. First, the vast majority of users assume that it is only responsible for matching, matching our buy and sell transactions. Our profits come from the losses of others; the trading volume on the order book is real, and our orders are also normal. It is not that we exploited some loopholes; there are indeed real people on the order book losing money to us. However, if they claim it is their loophole, they need to provide evidence. It is unreasonable for them to unilaterally accuse us of exploiting their loophole.

If they believe this is a real loophole and that our account funds are due to their bug, then these transactions should not exist in reality.

Their claim that we are stealing is unreasonable; we are actually earning profits normally and withdrawing funds. It is not that we hacked into their exchange's wallet; their risk control and review team did not stop our withdrawals.

(BG responded: We will release an incident report as soon as possible to restore the truth. Regarding whether it constitutes theft, there are past cases for reference, such as the 2015 case in Maoming City, Guangdong, case number: (2015) Maonan Criminal Initial No. 112.)

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。