The pressure on BitMart is shifting from a narrow social media dispute to a test of how centralized exchanges handle demands for basic financial disclosure.
At the center of the disagreement is a Chinese-language X account that, according to the original report, made claims about blocked funds and unpaid employees. BitMart founder Sheldon Lee responded by saying the account was hacked. Users, however, are not satisfied with that explanation. They are asking the exchange to disclose wallets, assets, and liabilities.
The difference between those two positions is significant. A hacked account can explain why a particular claim spread online. It cannot, on its own, show whether customer funds are unencumbered or whether the exchange is solvent.
What the hacked-account response leaves unanswered
Lee’s statement appears aimed at stopping the spread of information rather than answering the substantive demand. That is a familiar pattern in centralized exchange disputes: address the messenger, not the message. The problem is that the message here is not a single accusation. It is a request for information that would make the exchange’s position verifiable.
If BitMart disclosed wallet addresses and a liability breakdown, the market could check whether the platform holds enough to cover customer balances. Until that happens, the exchange is asking users to trust its word while leaving the actual ledger closed.
Proof of reserves has a blind spot
After the collapse of FTX, many exchanges rushed to publish proof-of-reserves or third-party attestations. But proof of reserves is typically only one side of the balance sheet. It can confirm that assets exist in certain wallets, yet it often says little about liabilities, the use of customer funds, or whether those assets can be accessed when users withdraw.
That blind spot is particularly relevant for BitMart, which has operated across multiple jurisdictions and maintained a broad retail user base. For traders, the practical question is not whether a social account was compromised, but whether their balances are fully backed and redeemable on demand.
The exchange has not publicly committed to publishing a full asset and liability reconciliation. That leaves users reliant on the same kind of partial information that has caused problems at other venues in previous cycles.
Information asymmetry is the real risk
Centralized exchanges hold customer funds and control the data about those funds. Users can see their own balances, but they cannot see how the exchange manages them. That imbalance becomes acute when rumors or withdrawals start. Even if a rumor is false, the absence of clear disclosure can make it harder for an exchange to restore confidence.
In this case, the source of the claims may be compromised, but the demand for disclosure is separate. BitMart could address the underlying issue by publishing verifiable wallet addresses and a liability snapshot. The market has seen repeated examples where platforms resisted that step until liquidity problems became unmanageable.
The wider market context
The regulatory environment adds another layer. In Washington, the banking sector is trying to reshape a major crypto market bill just days before a Senate vote, a fight covered in BlockchainReporter’s reporting on the Senate fight. That legislative process could eventually create clearer standards for how platforms report reserves and customer assets, but it offers no immediate remedy for BitMart users.
At the same time, institutional crypto markets continue to move toward tokenized real-world assets and live settlement, as tracked in the latest tokenization roundup. That institutional progress does not automatically translate into better custody disclosure at retail-facing exchanges.
Network-level activity also remains strong. Ethereum, BNB Chain, and Polygon still lead developer activity, according to BlockchainReporter’s developer activity ranking. But active developer ecosystems do not protect users from centralized custody risks.
For BitMart, the unresolved question is simple: can users verify what the exchange holds and what it owes? Until the company publishes that information, a hacked-account explanation will not close the trust gap.
