Ascendex, the survival of the small and medium-sized exchanges behind the explosion. Bureau
By Momo, ChainCatcher
Another small and medium-sized encryption exchange was exposed to anomalies。
ZachXBT recently issued a community alert on platform X, and the Centralized Exchange AscendEX (formerly Bitmax) was reported by multiple users as having been delayed for days to weeks or even unmanageable。
Based on feedback from communities such as Reddit and X, many users will stay in “Initiating” status for long periods of time after submitting their cash withdrawals in early June. In a few days or weeks, some users have even indicated that they have been waiting for one or two months. More critically, these withdrawal applications do not generate a chain-based trade in TXID, which usually means that the transaction is not actually sent to the block chain network。
FROM USER FEEDBACK, THE IMPACT IS NOT A SINGLE ASSET. SIMILAR DEVELOPMENTS HAVE OCCURRED IN MAINSTREAM ASSETS SUCH AS ETH, USDT AND PAXG. SEVERAL USERS INDICATED THAT FUNDS HAD BEEN DEDUCTED FROM THE ACCOUNT BALANCE, BUT THAT THE CLIENT SERVICE HAD BEEN UNABLE TO EXPLAIN THE DELAY IN IMPLEMENTING THE WITHDRAWAL, BUT HAD BEEN RESPONDING TO TEMPLATEIZED INFORMATION SUCH AS “WAIT PATIENTLY” “SUBMITTED TO THE TECHNICAL TEAM”。
ZachXBT mentioned that looking at the known hot wallets of the exchange through Arkham and TRM revealed that its reserves lacked mainstream large market value tokens such as ETH, USDT, SOL and may face liquidity problems。
In recent days, a number of users have been asking in the official X comment area of AscendEX about the proper resumption of cash withdrawals, but by the time the text was sent, the official AscendEX had still not issued an official note on the recent high volume of late cash withdrawals, nor had it explained the reasons for the problem or the expected recovery time, and its official X account had been updated on 23 June。
Ascendex was hacked, 78 million dollars lost
For many new users, AscendEX may already be a little strange。
It was created in 2018 by two founders with a quantitative trade background on Wall Street. During the last round of the cattle market, the platform quickly built up users by trading minerals, leverage, etc., and in 2021 it upgraded its brand name to AscendEX. In the same year, $50 million in B round financing was also secured, involving institutions such as Polychain Capital and Hack VC。
However, shortly after the completion of the financing, AscendEX suffered the most serious security incident since its inception。
In December 2021, the exchange's hot wallet was hacked and several network assets, such as ETH, BSC, Polygon, were stolen, resulting in a loss of approximately $78 million. After that, security agencies in various chains attributed the attack to the Korean hacker organization Lazarus Group. AscendEX stated at that time that the full loss would be borne by the platform, that the user assets would not be affected and that the platform would eventually resume normal operations。
More than security incidents themselves, the transparency of the Platform deserves attention。
In recent years, with the collapse of FTX driving the industry to enhance asset transparency, the front exchanges, Binance, OKX and others, have continued to issue reserve certificates and regularly undergo third-party audits to enable users to validate the Platform ' s asset reserve。
In contrast, AscendEX has not so far issued similar public certificates of reserve on an ongoing basis, nor is there a regular comprehensive third-party security audit record. The transparency of AscendEX on RootData is 46 per cent, grade C and low。
When the recent roll-out has been delayed and communities have begun to question liquidity, external concerns are further amplified by the lack of transparency and the difficulty for the market to independently judge the current funding situation of the Platform。
Behind the unusual, failed frequency: the survival of small and medium trading platforms
Over the past year, many small home-based encryption trading platforms have experienced liquidity difficulties, suspension of operations, closure of operations or direct exit from markets。
In 2025, XeggeX finally filed for bankruptcy in the wake of hacker attacks; Bibox continued to be in a crisis of confidence due to long delays in cash withdrawal and depletion of liquidity. In February this year, the Digital Asset Trading Company Block Bills announced a suspension of customer access for losses of approximately $75 million and sought to sell the company; in April, Websea also attracted community attention (subsequently announced a gradual recovery) due to currency withdrawal difficulties. In addition, Bit.com announced at the end of last year the launch of the phase-out plan and the withdrawal of its exchange operations。
While the reasons for the problems encountered by these platforms are not identical, they may reflect a common trend whereby the space for small and medium-sized exchanges is being compressed。
ON THE ONE HAND, NEW NARRATIVES SUCH AS ETF, STABILIZATION CURRENCY AND TOKENIZED SECURITIES ARE CONSTANTLY DRIVING THE INDUSTRY TOWARDS INSTITUTIONALIZATION AND COMPLIANCE, AND AN INCREASING NUMBER OF FUNDS AND USERS ARE BEGINNING TO FOCUS ON THE FRONT-LINE PLATFORM; ON THE OTHER HAND, THE BUSINESS MODEL ON WHICH SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED EXCHANGES ARE BASED IS INCREASINGLY CHALLENGED BY THE COOLING DOWN OF THEIR TRANSACTIONS, THE DECLINE IN THEIR EARNINGS AND THE PERSISTENCE OF TRANSACTION FEES。
For ordinary users, these cases may remind us that attention to the transparency of the Platform ' s reserves, its ability to exercise control and the risk of decentralization of hosting is always more important than advocacy after the fact。
