Talk to Bitget high-frequency market makers: "It's all made by your ability", restored the VOXEL event for the first time for $43 million "profit"

The market maker qntxxx in this VOXEL incident was interviewed by Wu Shuo. He said that he made a profit of 43 million US dollars through 100 sub-accounts, withdrew about 10 million US dollars, and Binance frozen hundreds of thousands US dollars. He said he would not compromise and had hired a lawyer, believing that based on the principle of fair trading, he would trade from the market instead of deliberately digging out loopholes to attack BG's servers. Therefore, this part of the profit (US$43 million) should belong to their team.

Bitget responded: These 8 accounts are suspected to be associated with professional wool interest groups, and are the main initiators of the VOXEL incident, and unjustly profits from it exceed 20 million US dollars. Bitget will distribute 100% of the funds recovered to platform users in the form of airdrops. Except for these 8 accounts, all other retail users (about 19 million US dollars) who participated in VOXEL transactions and had withdrawn cash from 16:00 to 16:30 on April 20, will return to normal on Wednesday and will not be held accountable in the future.

The following is an interview with the alleged market makers

Colin Wu: First, please introduce your history

qntxxx: Two people in our team have joined the currency circle for high-frequency trading since the beginning of 2022. But we may not have done well until the Luna crash, when we were a contract market maker on Binance at that time, making a profit of more than $1 million, and then continued to make market maker on Binance until early 2024. In November last year, we began to try to make market maker on smaller exchanges such as Bitget and Gate.

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

qntxxx: It actually has no absolute statement. Its spot liquidity is not very good, so if you want to apply for a contract market maker, you have to apply for his spot market maker at the same time. We've done it from November 2024 to the present. Its official website has an application portal. Whether it is an individual or an institution, you can apply for a market maker, and the threshold for passing is also very low, and only some proof of trading volume from other exchanges is required.

Colin Wu: Go back to this core question, how did you find this opportunity that day and what strategy did you adopt?

qntxxx: There is no fluctuation in the market. You can understand it as when the market is sideways, our strategy is to place many targets at the same time, that is, we will make many contracts at the same time. But if a certain currency suddenly pulls up and down, this is the most suitable scenario for us to make profits in high-frequency trading. Therefore, this scenario requires seizing its opportunity, and then enlarge the order amount and enlarge the number of sub-accounts for a transaction.

qntxxx: At that time, we also manually paid attention to this coin VOXEL. Its trading volume was already quite large, so we were also trading this coin. But suddenly it was discovered that its profits were magnified, and we have also increased the number of trading sub-accounts, about 100.

qntxxx: A similar situation occurred in the Luna incident. At that time, we also traded hundreds of accounts at the same time. This time, it is actually a similar incident to Luna. It is also a situation where there is a random K-line striking in its handicap. The K-line during that period was very consistent with the profit scenario of our strategy, so it led to us making a profit of US$43 million.

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

qntxxx: Finally, we proposed to go for about 10 million US dollars, and the Binance was frozen by hundreds of thousands of US dollars. There must be other market makers, but that time window is also short. 2 of 9 lawyer letters were sent to us, and we don’t know who the other letters were, but I think the total amount of the snatch should be more than US$20 million.

(BG responded: Before the risk control measures came into effect, the abnormal profit from withdrawal from the platform was 38.31 million USDT. Except for the abnormal profit of about 20 million USDT of the 8 accounts mentioned earlier, all other withdrawn funds will never be investigated)

We only have two people, managing three accounts. At that time, its trading volume increased sharply, and it lasted for more than half an hour. The currency had not been triggered for risk control, such as stopping trading. The account that made profits later first had some freezing treatment, but after two hours, it resumed withdrawals, and even withdrew the coins that night and the next day.

qntxxx: I think the essence of this matter is that the internal market makers of BG lost to us on the market. I think this is the principle of fair trading. We trade from the market, rather than deliberately digging out loopholes and attacking BG's servers. We trade fairly, so I think our profits (43 million US dollars) should all belong to us.

Colin Wu: BG has sent you a lawyer 's letter. Have you ever contacted a lawyer so far and consulted about related matters?

qntxxx: Yes, the lawyer suggested that we sue the Singaporean entity because they deduct it at will. When they operate transaction rollbacks, many ordinary users’ bills are all messy, and even financial management will be all taken away for you first. After the first wave of rollbacks, many users reported that the bill was not up to par because the exchange also included the handling fee, which deducted the user's money.

(BG Response: The principle of rollback is to correct abnormal profits and losses, so there will be no loss of the user's principal and handling fees. After the rollback is completed, we found that some users' handling fees were accidentally deducted, and the handling fees of the relevant accounts have been refunded. No user suffered losses from the principal and handling fees in this incident.)

Colin Wu: There is also a view that if this is a bug on the exchange, similar to the bugs of some banks, such as the bank inexplicably sending a few million more to a person, it may be returned as required by the law.

qntxxx: Our claim is this. BG has not admitted to the outside world that it has the kind of opponents involved in the user's market, but has not recognized their official contract market maker. First of all, the majority of users have agreed that it is only responsible for matching and matching the transactions of our buyer and seller. What we make is the money that others have lost to us. The trading volume of the market is real, and our orders are normal. It is not that through some loopholes, it is indeed true that someone is losing money to us. But if it claims to be its own loophole, then it needs to provide evidence and unilaterally prove us and use its loopholes. It makes no sense.

If he thinks this thing is a real loophole and the money in our account is caused by their bug, then these transactions should not exist.

They argue that we have no reason to steal, and we actually make profits normally and then withdraw coins. It’s not that we hacked their exchange wallets through hackers, and our risk control and review teams with withdrawals have not stopped them.

(BG Response: We will release the accident report as soon as possible to restore the truth. There are also past cases for reference for whether it is suspected of theft, such as the case in Maoming City, Guangdong in 2015, case number: (2015) Maonan Franc Criminal No. 112)