Author: momo, ChainCatcher
Another small to medium-sized cryptocurrency exchange has been exposed for abnormal withdrawal issues.
Recently, ZachXBT released a community alert on the X platform, reporting that the centralized exchange AscendEX (formerly Bitmax) has been reported by multiple users for withdrawal delays ranging from several days to several weeks, or even being unable to process withdrawals.
According to feedback from communities such as Reddit and X, since early June, many users' withdrawal requests have been stuck in the "Initiating" status for a long time after submission. Some users mentioned waiting for a few days, while others reported waiting for one or two months. More critically, these withdrawal requests have not generated on-chain transaction hashes (TXIDs), which usually indicates that the transactions have not truly been sent to the blockchain network.
User feedback indicates that the affected assets are not limited to a single type. Mainstream assets such as ETH, USDT, PAXG have also experienced similar situations. Multiple users reported that funds have been deducted from their account balances, but customer service has been unable to explain why the withdrawals have not been executed, only repeatedly responding with templated messages like "please be patient" and "submitted to the technical team."
ZachXBT noted that after checking the known hot wallets of the exchange via Arkham and TRM, it was found that its reserves lacked mainstream large market cap tokens like ETH, USDT, SOL, which may indicate liquidity issues.
Recently, several users have been inquiring in the official X comments section of AscendEX about when withdrawals will resume, but as of the time of publication, AscendEX's official account has not issued a formal statement regarding the recent numerous withdrawal delays, nor provided an explanation for the problems or an expected recovery time, with their latest updates on X being from June 23.
AscendEX was hacked and lost 78 million dollars
For many new users, AscendEX may be somewhat unfamiliar.
It originated as BitMax, founded in 2018 by two founders with backgrounds in quantitative trading on Wall Street. During the last bull market, the platform rapidly accumulated users through products like trading mining and leveraged trading, and completed a rebranding in 2021, changing its name to AscendEX. That same year, it also raised 50 million dollars in Series B funding with participation from institutions including Polychain Capital and Hack VC.
However, shortly after the funding was completed, AscendEX encountered the most severe security incident since its establishment.
In December 2021, the exchange's hot wallet was hacked, resulting in the theft of assets across multiple networks including ETH, BSC, and Polygon, with losses amounting to approximately 78 million dollars. After the incident, several on-chain security agencies attributed the attack to North Korean hacking group Lazarus Group. At that time, AscendEX stated that the platform would bear all losses, and users' assets would not be affected, and ultimately the platform resumed normal operations.
Compared to the incident itself, what is more concerning is the platform's transparency.
In recent years, as the collapse of FTX has prompted the industry to strengthen asset transparency, leading exchanges such as Binance and OKX have successively published reserve proofs and regularly undergo third-party audits, allowing users to verify the platform's asset reserve situation.
In contrast, AscendEX has not continuously and publicly released similar reserve proofs to date, nor does it have regular records of comprehensive third-party security audits. AscendEX's transparency on RootData is 46%, categorized as grade C, indicating low transparency.
As the recent withdrawal delays continue to ferment and the community begins to question liquidity, the low transparency makes it even more challenging for the market to independently assess the platform's current funding status, which further amplifies external concerns.
Abnormal withdrawals and frequent closures: The survival dilemma of small and medium-sized exchanges
In the past year, several small to medium-sized cryptocurrency exchanges have encountered difficulties in withdrawals, suspended operations, closed businesses, or directly exited the market.
In 2025, XeggeX filed for bankruptcy following a hacking incident; Bibox has continuously faced a trust crisis due to long withdrawal delays and liquidity depletion. In February of this year, the digital asset trading company BlockFills announced a pause on customer deposits and withdrawals due to a loss of about 75 million dollars and sought to sell the company; in April, Websea also drew community attention due to withdrawal difficulties (and later announced a gradual recovery). Additionally, Bit.com announced at the end of last year a phased shutdown plan to exit the exchange business.
Although the reasons for these platforms' problems are not entirely the same, they may reflect a common trend: the survival space for small to medium-sized exchanges is continuously being compressed.
On one hand, new narratives such as ETFs, stablecoins, and tokenized securities are pushing the industry towards institutionalization and compliance, with more funds and users starting to concentrate on leading platforms; on the other hand, the cooling of altcoin trading, reduced listing revenues, and continuous internal competition for trading fees are posing increasing challenges to the business models that small to medium-sized exchanges rely on for survival.
For ordinary users, these cases may remind us that focusing on the transparency of a platform's reserves, risk control capabilities, and decentralized custodial risks is always more important than seeking rights afterwards.
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。
