Tag: bitget

Altcoin Refuses to Freeze Assets Stolen from Bitget
Key Highlights:
- Attackers from the Bitget security incident are moving stolen funds across chains using THORChain, according to SlowMist’s MistTrack platform.
- Bitget CEO Gracy Chen formally requested THORChain reject transactions from identified attacker addresses, arguing decentralization should not shield illicit fund flows.
- THORChain responded that its permissionless design mirrors Bitcoin and Ethereum, questioning how much responsibility base-layer chains bear for processing known stolen assets.
Bitget Hackers Leverage THORChain for Cross-Chain Laundering, On-Chain Data Shows

Blockchain security firm SlowMist has confirmed that addresses linked to the recent Bitget security breach are actively utilizing THORChain to bridge and exchange stolen assets across multiple networks. The firm’s on-chain tracking platform, MistTrack, reported that the attackers have initiated cross-chain transactions through the decentralized liquidity protocol, a pattern that mirrors the movement of roughly $1.2 billion in funds stolen during the Bybit exploit earlier this year. MistTrack emphasized that the attacker addresses have been publicly identified and are under active surveillance by industry participants.

Debate Intensifies Over Decentralized Protocol Accountability

The development has reignited a contentious industry debate regarding the obligations of decentralized protocols when processing proceeds from known hacks. MistTrack argued that the principle of decentralization should not serve as an automatic justification for facilitating the movement of demonstrably stolen funds. The platform called for an industry-wide discussion on the responsibility protocols like THORChain should bear in such scenarios, suggesting that technical neutrality cannot fully absolve infrastructure providers of ethical or reputational considerations when handling illicit flows at scale.

Bitget CEO Demands Protocol-Level Intervention

Following MistTrack’s disclosure, Bitget CEO Gracy Chen issued a formal appeal to THORChain, urging the protocol to reject transactions originating from the flagged addresses. Chen stated that the addresses associated with the attackers had been publicly shared and were still being actively monitored. She contended that while decentralization is a foundational design principle, it should not be seen as “a shield to facilitate the movement of stolen funds with known origins.” Her statement underscores a growing expectation among centralized exchanges that decentralized infrastructure should implement screening or blocking mechanisms for sanctioned or hack-linked addresses.

THORChain Defends Permissionless Architecture

THORChain responded to the criticism by reaffirming its commitment to a decentralized and permissionless operational model, drawing a direct parallel to base-layer networks such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, and BNB Chain. While expressing regret over the Bitget attack, the team posed a rhetorical challenge: “How much responsibility should Bitcoin, Ethereum, and $BNB Chain bear when processing known stolen funds?” The response frames the issue as a systemic characteristic of censorship-resistant networks rather than a protocol-specific failing, resisting calls for transaction-level filtering.

Why This Matters

The clash between Bitget and THORChain highlights a deepening fault line in the crypto ecosystem: the tension between the ethos of permissionless, censorship-resistant infrastructure and the practical demands of asset recovery and regulatory compliance. As cross-chain bridges become critical arteries for liquidity—and for laundering—pressure is mounting on decentralized protocols to adopt some form of on-chain screening without compromising their core architecture. The outcome of this debate could shape future standards for bridge governance, influence how regulators treat decentralized protocols, and determine whether “code is law” remains an absolute defense when stolen funds traverse public rails.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is THORChain and why are hackers using it?

THORChain is a decentralized cross-chain liquidity protocol that enables native asset swaps between blockchains without wrapped tokens. Its permissionless design allows anyone to move funds across chains—including Bitcoin, Ethereum, and BNB Chain—without KYC or centralized approval, making it attractive for laundering stolen assets.

Can THORChain technically block the hacker addresses?

THORChain’s architecture is designed to be censorship-resistant; validators process transactions based on consensus rules, not identity. Implementing an address blocklist would require a governance vote and protocol upgrade, which contradicts its permissionless ethos and could set a precedent for future interventions.

Has this happened before with other major hacks?

Yes. SlowMist’s MistTrack previously documented that a significant portion of the approximately $1.2 billion stolen in the Bybit attack was also routed through THORChain, indicating a recurring pattern of high-profile exploit proceeds flowing through the same cross-chain infrastructure.
09/27/2026
Swiss Bank Shields Bitget Institutional Clients as Retail Funds Remain Frozen
Key Highlights
- Bitget confirmed a Sept. 24 wallet breach that transferred approximately $387.5 million in assets to attacker-controlled addresses, affecting hot and warm wallet layers while cold wallets remained secure.
- Sygnum Bank’s Protect service offers Bitget institutional clients an off-exchange custody route where pledged collateral—including Bitcoin, Ethereum, stablecoins, and U.S. Treasuries—is held in segregated, bankruptcy-remote Swiss accounts, reducing direct exposure to exchange wallets.
- Withdrawals remain suspended as of Sept. 25; Bitget cites a User Protection Fund holding 5,500 BTC (valued above $464 million at the time of the breach) to cover qualifying losses, with a withdrawal-status update promised by Sept. 26 04:00 UTC.
The Breach and Immediate Response

Bitget detected unauthorized transfers at 18:31 UTC on Sept. 24, initially estimating the loss at roughly $351.6 million. A Sept. 25 update raised that figure to approximately $387.5 million after a fuller accounting that included Zcash and TRON transfers; the exchange emphasized the revision did not represent a fresh wave of unauthorized activity. Bitget stated the breach reached portions of its hot and warm wallet layers while cold wallets remained secure. The exchange said it identified and remediated the underlying vulnerability, contained the incident, and engaged Mandiant and SlowMist to assist the investigation.

Withdrawals were paused immediately, with deposits and trading left operational. Bitget’s notice promised to announce a withdrawal plan or status by Sept. 26 at 04:00 UTC. For ordinary customers, a displayed balance and the ability to trade do not by themselves provide an exit while withdrawals are unavailable.

Sygnum’s Off-Exchange Custody Alternative

On the same day as the breach, Sygnum announced that Bitget’s institutional clients could trade against collateral held at the Swiss bank instead of placing that collateral in Bitget’s wallets. Under the Protect service, eligible clients onboard with Sygnum, sign a contractual framework, open a Protect portfolio, and pledge assets—Bitcoin, Ethereum, stablecoins, and U.S. Treasuries are listed as eligible collateral—before receiving exchange margin. Bitget mirrors the balance as trading margin.

Sygnum describes the collateral as held in segregated accounts off the bank’s balance sheet and bankruptcy remote under Swiss banking law. The arrangement is intended to keep pledged assets outside Bitget’s estate should the exchange face financial distress, and to reduce direct custody exposure to Bitget’s own wallets. The announcement is dated Sept. 24 but does not state when client access became operational, whether the integration preceded or followed the 18:31 UTC breach, how many Bitget clients have onboarded, any Bitget-specific collateral balance, or whether Sygnum-held assets were involved in the incident. Public figures for Protect’s total assets and the trading-volume share of all integrated exchanges do not measure Bitget client uptake.

User Protection Fund and Recovery Outlook

For users holding ordinary balances on Bitget, the exchange pointed to its User Protection Fund. In its initial Sept. 24 notice, Bitget said the fund was worth more than $464 million and that the then-estimated $351.6 million incident fell within its coverage. The fund’s public page lists 5,500 BTC and states users may claim for qualifying losses from platform-wide events beyond their own actions or trading behavior, with Bitget reserving the right to assess and investigate claims. The dollar value of the Bitcoin-denominated fund moves with BTC’s price; Bitget’s August report put the fund’s monthly average at $382 million and its month-end value near $432 million on the same 5,500 BTC holding.

Bitget also said it froze some affected assets through work with industry partners, but its Sept. 25 update did not quantify the frozen or recovered amount. The next measurable tests are a confirmed withdrawal timetable, a firmer loss and recovery accounting, and the terms of any fund disbursement.

Why This Matters

The incident highlights a structural tension in crypto custody: even when institutional collateral is segregated off-exchange with a regulated bank like Sygnum, trading still depends on the exchange’s order, margin, and settlement processes. Public materials do not establish that a Protect client can instantly reclaim pledged collateral during an exchange disruption, nor that operational problems could never delay settlement. Conversely, they do not show that any Sygnum client is blocked from its collateral in this incident. The arrangement creates an optional boundary between institutional collateral and Bitget wallet custody—Bitget’s ordinary balances faced exchange-wallet exposure, while Institutional Protect keeps pledged collateral off-exchange with Sygnum. Missing facts include Bitget-specific Protect uptake and the contract terms governing collateral release and settlement when the exchange is under strain.

Frequently Asked Questions

How much was stolen in the Bitget breach and which wallets were affected?

Bitget estimates approximately $387.5 million in assets were transferred to attacker-controlled addresses. The breach reached hot and warm wallet layers; cold wallets were not compromised.

What is Sygnum Protect and how does it differ from keeping funds on Bitget?

Sygnum Protect lets eligible institutional clients pledge collateral—such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, stablecoins, and U.S. Treasuries—in segregated, bankruptcy-remote accounts at the Swiss bank. Bitget mirrors that collateral as trading margin, but the assets remain off Bitget’s balance sheet and outside its wallets, reducing direct custody exposure.

When will Bitget withdrawals resume and are user funds insured?

Withdrawals remain suspended as of Sept. 25. Bitget promised an update by Sept. 26 04:00 UTC. The exchange cites a User Protection Fund holding 5,500 BTC (valued above $464 million at the time of the breach) to cover qualifying platform-wide losses, subject to claim assessment and investigation.
09/26/2026
Bitget Crypto Exchange Exploited for $351M as Hacker Swaps Stolen Funds for Ethereum
Key Highlights
- Crypto exchange Bitget confirmed a $351.6 million security breach involving multiple hot wallets
- Attackers moved stolen assets across chains and converted stablecoins into Ethereum through rapid transactions
- The breach represents one of the largest exchange hot wallet compromises in recent crypto history
Bitget Confirms Major Hot Wallet Security Breach

Cryptocurrency exchange Bitget has officially confirmed a massive security breach resulting in the loss of $351.6 million from its hot wallet infrastructure. According to the exchange’s disclosure, attackers successfully drained several hot wallets before moving the stolen assets across multiple blockchain networks and converting stablecoin holdings into Ethereum through a series of rapid transactions.

Attack Methodology and Asset Movement

The breach involved a coordinated exploitation of Bitget’s hot wallet systems, which are internet-connected wallets used for daily trading operations and withdrawals. The attackers executed a sophisticated multi-chain strategy, transferring compromised funds across different blockchain networks to obscure the trail before consolidating the value into Ethereum. This conversion of stablecoins into ETH suggests the perpetrators sought to move into a more liquid, widely accepted asset that can be more easily mixed or bridged to other ecosystems.

Why This Matters

This incident ranks among the largest centralized exchange hot wallet compromises on record, surpassing many previous high-profile breaches in sheer dollar value. The scale underscores persistent vulnerabilities in hot wallet architectures despite industry advances in multi-signature schemes, threshold signatures, and hardware security modules. For the broader crypto market, the breach reinforces concerns about custodial risk and may accelerate user migration toward self-custody solutions or exchanges with proven reserve transparency. Regulators will likely scrutinize Bitget’s security practices and incident response, potentially influencing forthcoming exchange compliance standards globally.

Frequently Asked Questions

How much was stolen in the Bitget hot wallet breach?

Bitget confirmed a loss of $351.6 million from several compromised hot wallets.

What did the attackers do with the stolen funds?

The attackers moved assets across chains and converted stablecoins into Ethereum during rapid transactions.

Which exchange was hacked?

Crypto exchange Bitget was the victim of this security breach.
09/24/2026
Bitget Freezes Withdrawals After $351.6M Hack
Key Highlights
- Bitget confirmed a $351.6 million exploit from its hot wallets on September 24, 2026, with on-chain data showing the first unauthorized transfer at 18:31:11 UTC and major outflows continuing for nearly three hours before the public notice.
- The attacker rapidly converted freezable stablecoins (USDT, USDC, Tether Gold) into ether via a router contract, paying up to 5% above spot price, suggesting a deliberate race against issuer freeze functions.
- CEO Gracy Chen stated user funds are safe and the loss is covered by Bitget’s $464 million User Protection Fund, while withdrawals remain suspended pending a full incident report due within 24 hours.
Timeline Reveals Hours-Long Gap Between Detection and Containment

Bitget chief executive Gracy Chen confirmed on Thursday night that attackers drained roughly $351.6 million from the exchange’s hot wallets, suspending customer withdrawals while an investigation proceeds. Chen published the notice at 21:30 UTC on September 24, 2026, stating: “At 18:31 UTC on September 24, 2026, Bitget’s security systems detected unauthorized transfers from some of our hot wallets. Our security team activated emergency response protocols immediately.”

On-chain data corroborates the 18:31 detection timestamp but paints a more granular picture of the subsequent three hours. At 18:31:11 UTC, a wallet labeled “Bitget 6” on Etherscan, Arbiscan, and BscScan sent 0.84 ether to a newly created address — a test transaction that typically precedes large transfers and marks the first movement of the breach. The outflows accelerated rapidly: by 18:58:59, the same wallet moved 34,751,168 USDT; at 19:01:20 on Arbitrum, 19,668,851 USDT0; at 19:01:23, 12,852,046 USDC; and at 19:01:35, 7,130.86 ether. A second wallet, “Bitget 35,” added 15,362 ether across three transfers, followed by another 223.2 ether at 21:23:11 — two hours and 52 minutes after detection and just seven minutes before Chen’s public notice.

Across Ethereum and Arbitrum alone, $133.4 million exited Bitget-labeled wallets, plus 3,000 Tether Gold tokens worth approximately $12.8 million from a third address. The remainder of the $351.6 million moved on other chains. Chen emphasized that cold storage was never touched and described a three-tier wallet architecture in which “the breach contained only a portion of the hot wallet and warm wallet layers.” However, the extended window between detection and containment allowed substantial value to leave the exchange’s control.

Attacker Strategy Signals Intent to Outrun Freeze Functions

The composition of stolen assets and the speed of conversion provide the clearest signal of the attacker’s intent. Tether can freeze USDT, Circle can freeze USDC, and Tether can freeze its gold token — but ether cannot be frozen by any central party. Within six minutes of receiving the stablecoins, the attacker pushed all three asset types into router contract 0x7c96279E, which fanned them across Uniswap V3 pools and the Uniswap V4 PoolManager, converting everything into ether.

Pseudonymous analyst DCF GOD, who identified the Arbitrum leg before Bitget’s public statement, noted the buyer was “paying up to +5% over spot” and drove one pool to $2,870 against a spot price near $2,688. “which makes no sense if someone was just trying to buy eth,” he wrote. The premium paid aligns with a seller racing issuer freeze functions rather than a typical market participant. The resulting ether — approximately 24,590 ETH — now sits in three previously inactive wallets: 10,000 ETH at 20:13, another 10,000 at 20:19, and 4,590 more at 21:41:11. That final transfer occurred ten minutes after Chen’s notice and one minute after Bitget’s official account stated it had “identified and flagged the relevant transfer addresses.”

Exchange Response and Industry Context

“User funds are safe,” Chen wrote. “The full amount of this loss falls within the coverage of Bitget’s User Protection Fund, which currently holds over $464 million.” She added that deposits and trading continue normally and promised a full incident report within 24 hours: “We will not speculate on the attack vector until the investigation is complete.”

That restraint reflects a pattern security experts recognize across recent major exchange breaches. Ido Sofer, founder and CEO of key management firm Sodot, described the dynamic on the On The Margin podcast: “Those are off-chain hacks that led to on-chain loss of funds. Developer credentials, deployment keys, API keys that are being stolen. And that provided access to moving funds on chain.” His blunter assessment: “There will be hacks. The question is, is it gonna be in your company or not?”

Bitget’s $464 million protection fund against a $351.6 million loss provides a thin but real cushion. The exchange has published proof-of-reserves attestations for 45 consecutive months, most recently reporting a 122% reserve ratio for August. The immediate test is whether withdrawals reopen without disruption.

Why This Matters

This incident represents the largest exchange loss since the Bybit breach and follows a series of high-profile security failures including the $130 million Coldcard theft and a $137 million November exploit that reshaped DeFi’s yield infrastructure. The attack underscores a persistent industry vulnerability: custodial exchanges remain prime targets where compromised off-chain credentials — developer keys, API access, deployment infrastructure — translate directly into on-chain asset drainage. The attacker’s sophisticated conversion strategy, deliberately overpaying to swap freezable assets for censorship-resistant ether before issuers could intervene, demonstrates an evolving playbook that prioritizes speed and asset selection over stealth. For the broader market, the episode tests whether exchange-backed protection funds can credibly absorb nine-figure losses without contagion, and whether proof-of-reserves attestations translate into operational resilience when withdrawals are suspended. The 24,590 ether now parked in three fresh wallets remains a live threat vector; any movement will signal the next phase of laundering or liquidation.

Frequently Asked Questions

What assets were stolen and how much is the total loss?

Approximately $351.6 million was drained from Bitget’s hot wallets across multiple chains. On Ethereum and Arbitrum alone, $133.4 million in USDT, USDC, USDT0, and ether left labeled wallets, plus 3,000 Tether Gold tokens worth ~$12.8 million. The remainder moved on other networks. The attacker converted all freezable stablecoins and gold tokens into ether within minutes.

Are user funds affected and will withdrawals resume?

CEO Gracy Chen stated “User funds are safe” and confirmed the loss falls within Bitget’s User Protection Fund, which holds over $464 million. Cold storage was not touched. Deposits and trading continue normally, but withdrawals remain suspended pending investigation. A full incident report is promised within 24 hours from the September 24 notice.

How did the attacker move the funds and can they be recovered?

The attacker used a router contract (0x7c96279E) to swap USDT, USDC, and Tether Gold for ether via Uniswap V3 and V4 pools, paying up to 5% above spot price to execute quickly before issuers could freeze the stablecoins. The resulting ~24,590 ether now sits in three previously unused wallets. Ether cannot be frozen by any central party. Tether and Circle have freeze capabilities for USDT and USDC respectively, but those assets were already converted. Recovery depends on law enforcement action, exchange cooperation, and whether the attacker makes operational security mistakes when moving the ether.
09/24/2026
Bitget CEO Confirms Hack, Reveals Massive Losses; Withdrawals Suspended
Key Highlights
- Cryptocurrency exchange Bitget detected unauthorized transfers from hot wallets totaling approximately $351.6 million on September 24, 2026, at 18:31 UTC.
- Cold wallets remain secure and the loss is fully covered by Bitget’s User Protection Fund, which holds over $464 million in assets.
- Withdrawals are temporarily suspended as a precaution; deposits and trading continue normally with hourly updates promised and a full incident report due within 24 hours.
Breach Detection and Emergency Response

Cryptocurrency exchange Bitget released an official statement on September 24, 2026, confirming that its security systems detected unauthorized transfers from several hot wallets at 6:31 PM UTC. According to a statement by Bitget CEO Gracy Chen, the company’s security team activated emergency response protocols immediately upon detection. The exchange announced that its emergency response team was activated within minutes, the addresses where the unusual transfers occurred were identified and marked, and relevant parties were notified. Law enforcement and security companies have been officially involved in the investigation process.

[SECURITY NOTICE] Bitget Hot Wallet Incident — September 24, 2026
At 18:31 UTC on September 24, 2026, Bitget’s security systems detected unauthorized transfers from some of our hot wallets. Our security team activated emergency response protocols immediately.
What we have…
— Gracy Chen @Bitget (@GracyBitget) September 24, 2026

Wallet Architecture Limits Impact

Bitget emphasized that the incident was limited to only a portion of the hot and warm wallet layers. The company operates a three-layered wallet architecture, and cold wallets were not affected by the breach. This structural segregation prevented the compromise from extending to the majority of user funds held in offline storage. The exchange maintained that account balances are accurate and user assets are protected despite the hot wallet losses.

User Protection Fund Coverage

The company stated that the entire approximately $351.6 million loss could be covered by Bitget’s User Protection Fund, which holds over $464 million in assets. This reserve mechanism is designed to absorb losses from security incidents without impacting individual user holdings. Bitget reiterated that user funds are safe and the protection fund has sufficient capacity to cover the full extent of the unauthorized transfers.

Operational Status and Next Steps

As a precautionary measure while a security review is underway, Bitget has temporarily suspended withdrawal transactions. However, deposits and trading continue as normal. The exchange announced that withdrawals will be reopened after the security review is complete. The company committed to sharing updates on the incident hourly and publishing a comprehensive incident report detailing the cause of the attack, the method used, and corrective measures taken within 24 hours. The method used in the attack has not been disclosed at this stage, and Bitget stated it will not speculate on the attack vector until the investigation is complete.

Why This Matters

The Bitget incident highlights the persistent security challenges facing centralized cryptocurrency exchanges, particularly regarding hot wallet management. Hot wallets, which remain connected to the internet to facilitate rapid withdrawals and trading operations, represent a concentrated attack surface. The exchange’s three-layered architecture—segregating cold, warm, and hot wallets—demonstrates a defense-in-depth approach that successfully contained the breach to the most exposed layer. The existence of a substantial User Protection Fund, capitalized at over $464 million, reflects an industry trend toward self-insurance mechanisms that can absorb losses without requiring bailouts or socialized loss distribution among users. The temporary withdrawal suspension, while disruptive, follows standard incident response protocols to prevent further outflows during forensic analysis. The promised transparency—hourly updates and a detailed post-mortem within 24 hours—sets a benchmark for crisis communication in the digital asset sector. Regulators and industry observers will likely scrutinize the attack vector once disclosed, as it may inform evolving security standards for custodial platforms.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are user funds on Bitget safe after this incident?

Yes. Bitget has confirmed that cold wallets were not affected and the approximately $351.6 million loss is fully covered by its User Protection Fund, which holds over $464 million in assets. Account balances remain accurate and user assets are protected.

Can I still trade and deposit on Bitget?

Yes. Deposits and trading continue as normal. Only withdrawal transactions have been temporarily suspended as a precautionary measure while the security review is conducted.

When will withdrawals resume and when will we know how the attack happened?

Bitget states withdrawals will reopen after the security review is complete. The company will provide hourly updates and publish a comprehensive incident report detailing the cause, method, and corrective measures within 24 hours of the initial detection.
09/24/2026
Bitget CEO Interview: Bitcoin course will reach $ 120,000 by the end of the year

In this exclusive interview we have the privilege with Gracy Chen, CEO of Bitgetto speak that shares your knowledge about some of the most pressing questions with us today. Gracy offers a comprehensive view of the developing crypto landscape from forecasts from Bitcoin to 2025 and 2030 to Bitget’s future ambitions and security measures. We also respond to the potential of XRP to challenge the dominance of Swift in cross -border payment transactions and examine how Bitget protects the funds of the users in an increasingly volatile environment.

Collin Brown: What is your prediction for the Bitcoin course at the end of 2025 and 2030?

Gracy Chen : At the end of 2025, Bitcoin will enter the 18th month of the last halder cycle, typically we see an increase in BTC prices at this time. Compared to the last cycles, Bitcoin’s percentage increase has decreased, although prices have increased enormously. For example, Bitcoin experienced considerable growth 18 months after each halving: approximately 8,200% after halving 2012, 2,700% after 2016 and 680% after 2020.

If this cycle is aligned, the fourth quarter of 2025 could mark an important high, with potential two to three times growth compared to the halving price of April 2024 (approx. $ 63,000), which implies targets of $ 126,000 to $ 190,000. However, decreasing income and external factors such as ETF currents, regulatory measures and global liquidity will affect the size. The historical data indicate strong upward potential, but are not a guarantee – the probability is cheap, but not absolutely.

Collin Brown: Which market share is aiming for Bitget worldwide and how many users are they striving for by 2030?

Gracy Chen: Bitget has recently experienced remarkable growth, from 20 million to over 100 million users – an increase of 400% – and a doubling of our daily trade volume from $ 10 billion to $ 20 billion. With regard to the future, our primary goal is to consolidate our position as one of the three leading global cryptocurrency exchanges.

We do not have a precise user destination for 2030, but we focus on sustainable growth based on solid security, continuous innovation and strict compliance with regulations. We believe that this approach will naturally lead to an important and committed user base over time.

Collin Brown: Will the US government buy Bitcoin? If so, how much?

Gracy Chen: So far, the United States has not bought large quantities of Bitcoin. With the previously shared intentions of investing and growing in long -term cryptocurrencies, the United States is in a strategic position to buy Bitcoin and even surpass other large countries that hold Bitcoin. So far, the United States has held around 198,000 BTC worth around $ 18.3 billion, which mainly come from confiscations. In March, President Trump signed a implementation regulation to create a strategic bitcoin reserve and thus signaled his intention to maintain the stocks and possibly expand. A draft law in the congress suggests acquiring 1 million BTC over a period of five years without using tax money in order to keep them as a national reserve in the long term. In the future, the United States could be one of the largest Bitcoin owners.

Collin Brown: Can XRP SWIFT replace if the legal dispute with the SEC is finally settled?

Gracy Chen: Swift was founded in the 1970s, while XRP was introduced in 2012. The difference between the two innovations and the period of time between your birth and your introduction is enormous. XRP could be a faster, more efficient addition to Swift in certain applications, but it is unlikely that Swift will replace it in the near future. XRP has great potential to supplement or disturb parts of the traditional payment systems, especially in the case of cross -border bills. While Swift is a 50-year-old messaging network used by over 11,000 financial institutions, XRP is still very young and was developed to beat the older mechanisms. Even if it is unlikely that XRP Swift will take over, it is possible that it will attack Swift’s current monopoly and offers itself as a new, faster alternative for global payment transactions.

Collin Brown: How do you protect users’ funds on Bitget?

Gracy Chen: With Bitget, security is not just a function, but a basic principle. Our success record of zero has been violating since 2018, despite constant attempts at attack, underlines the effectiveness of our proactive security position.

We have implemented a comprehensive, multi -layered security system to minimize possible effects of attacks.

Our protection fund, which currently has a value of over 500 million US dollars, and our 213%Proof of Reserve offer a strong safety net that ensures a transparent 1: 1 protection of all user money by monthly Merkle Tree audits. We prefer offline-color storage with multi-signature protocols for the majority of assets, while our hot walls are secured with private key isolation and continuous real-time monitoring. Our ISO 27001: 2022-certification confirms that we comply with the highest security standards, including SSL encryption and a risk control system that actively identifies and contains suspicious activities.

This mix of advanced technology and user-friendly tools such as 2FA and whitelists for withdrawals has brought Bitget an AAA security rating and underlines our continuous commitment to protect our users’ assets.

Collin Brown: What are the official trading fees for small investors at Bitget?

Gracy Chen: Our competitive trading fees are structured in such a way that they reward our active users and those with larger stocks. We work with a graded VIP system in which your trading volume or the amount of assets you hold with us directly affect the fees you pay. At the entry level, our standard fees for the Kassaandel, for example, are 0.1 % for both market makers and takers. For trade in futures, the fees with 0.02 % for market maker and 0.06 % for takers are even lower. In addition, we offer you the option of reducing these fees even further by holding our native tokens, BGB, or increasing your trading volume. All specific details on our VIP levels and fees can be found on our Website.

Collin Brown: Thank you for your time and your valuable insights. We wish Bitget and all crypto investors big profits and a nice day!

Gracy Chen: Thank you for this opportunity, and we will speak again soon!

05/07/2025