Crypto Guides, Knowledge & Insights

WikiBit Exchange Exit Risk List #22: MGBX — An Investigation into “Compliance Packaging” and “Users Losing Contact”

Introduction: An Exchange That Seems to “Not Exist”　　In the first 21 editions of this series, we investigated a range of crypto exchanges, from HashKey to WEEX. For Edition #22, we have something particularly “surreal”: MGBX.　　On paper, its résumé looks pretty impressive:　　“Founded in 2019,” “operating for seven years,” “more than 500,000 registered users,” “average monthly trading volume consistently above $20 billion over the past six months,” “Canada MSB + U.S. FinCEN MSB + Polish VASP registration,” “hot and cold wallet separation + multi-signature security,” and “Echo Points + AI-powered copy trading.”　　Sounds like an “up-and-coming compliant exchange,” right？　　But there is another side to the story.　　MGBX cannot be found on CoinGeckos exchange rankings. In November 2025, approximately 96,000 user login and withdrawal passwords were reportedly exposed, an incident described by security organizations as an “exchange extinction-level event.” Its team page lists the CEO as “Jane Doe” — one of the most famous anonymous placeholders in the English-speaking world, essentially the equivalent of “John Doe” or “Zhang San” in Chinese.　　Meanwhile, users have complained that after depositing $28,000, they were asked to pay a $5,000 “unlock fee” before they could withdraw their funds.　　An exchange whose CEO is literally listed as “Jane Doe” — would you

09-10Deep Dive

WikiBit Exchange Exit Risk List #21: WEEX: 8 Years in Business, a 1,000 BTC Fund, La Liga Sponsorship — So Why Are Users Still Complaining, “They Only Let Me Withdraw After I Delete My Posts”?

Introduction: A Veteran Exchange with an Almost Schizophrenic Reputation　　In the previous 20 editions, we investigated a series of crypto exchanges, from HashKey to Bitunix. For the 21st edition, were taking a look at a particularly “schizophrenic” veteran exchange — WEEX .　　On paper, its résumé looks impressive:　　“Founded in 2018,” “8 years of operations,” “more than 10 million users across 170+ countries,” “Top 10 in derivatives on CoinGecko,” “approximately $15 billion in daily futures trading volume,” “official partner of La Liga,” “a 1,000 BTC User Protection Fund,” “102% USDT reserves, 115% ETH reserves, and 122% BTC reserves,” and “four licenses/registrations in the United States, Canada, El Salvador, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.”　　Sounds like the perfect profile of a long-established, stable, major exchange, right？　　But on the other side of the story, the picture looks very different.　　In March 2025, the U.S. state of Georgia issued a cease-and-desist order against it for operating a money transmission business without a license. WEEX is not MiCA-compliant, and it does not appear on the ESMA CASP register. WikiBit rates it as having “regulatory abnormalities,” with the regulator-reported status listed as revoked.　　Trustpilot suspended WEEX‘s rating over suspected review manipulation, while users in the review section have complained about

09-09Deep Dive

WikiBit Exchange Exit Scam Risk Ranking #20 — Bitunix: “Easy to Get In, Impossible to Get Out” — Bitunix Users, Can You Still Get Your Money Back?

Introduction: An Exchange With Extreme “Split Personality”　　Over the previous 19 editions, we have investigated a series of crypto exchanges ranging from HashKey to BVOX. For the 20th edition, we are taking on one with an almost extreme “split personality” — Bitunix.　　Its résumé looks like that of a “top student” in the crypto industry:　　“Founded in 2021,” “over 5 million users across 150+ countries,” “ranked 33rd on CMCs derivatives rankings,” “AA rating from CER.live, ranking among the global top 17,” “$116.8 million in reserves with a 108%+ reserve ratio,” “ISO 27001:2022 certification,” “AUSTRAC registration + El Salvador BSP license + U.S. and Canadian MSB registrations,” a “$30 million Bitunix Care Fund,” and “$5 million in insurance.”　　Sounds like the perfect combination of compliance + security + transparency, right？　　But on the other side of the story:　　The Seychelles Financial Services Authority (FSA) publicly named Bitunix in a 2025 warning, stating that the platform was operating without authorization and falsely claiming to hold a Philippine license. Bitunix has no Tier-1 regulatory oversight, and it does not appear on the ESMA CASP register.　　Its Trustpilot score stands at 3.5/5, with users openly calling it a “SCAM” and an “exit scam.”　　WikiBit states that Bitunix currently has no valid crypto-asset

09-08Deep Dive

WikiBit Exchange Exit Scam Risk Rankings — Issue 19: BVOX: BitVenus Reborn Under a New Name — The Art of Being a “Rebranded Exchange”

Introduction: Can Changing Your Name Really Wash Away the Past？　　In the first 18 issues, we dug into a series of crypto exchanges ranging from HashKey to Poloniex. Today, in Issue 19, we turn our attention to a “master of rebranding” — BVOX.　　On paper, its résumé actually looks pretty decent: “Founded in 2018,” “a global professional cryptocurrency trading platform,” “spot and perpetual futures trading,” “U.S. + Canadian MSB registrations,” and a “56.44% confidence score on CoinPaprika.”　　Sounds like the standard setup for a “reliable, established exchange,” right？　　But on the other side of the story:　　BVOX was only renamed from BitVenus in July 2024, effectively continuing operations under a new identity. Its Trustpilot rating sits at just 1.9/5, with users openly calling it a “SCAM.” Users have complained that “once you deposit, you cant withdraw,” that their accounts were “frozen after making profits,” and that “customer service is completely nonexistent.”　　South Korean media have also reported allegations that the platform refused to process a $20,000 withdrawal, citing “illegal proceeds” as the reason. Meanwhile, WikiBit indicates that the company currently has no valid crypto-asset regulatory authorization.　　So, can an exchange that emerged from BitVenus simply put on a new name and leave all its problems behind？　　Today, were

09-07Deep Dive

WikiBit Exchange Exit Risk Ranking #18: Poloniex — How Did the 12-Year “Living Fossil” of the Crypto Industry Become a “Top Wanted Target” in the Eyes of Regulators?

Preface: The Two Sides of a “Legacy Brand”　　In the previous 17 editions, we investigated a series of exchanges ranging from HashKey to BigONE. Today, in the 18th edition, we turn our attention to a true “ancient beast” of the crypto world — Poloniex.　　Its résumé could be described as a “living fossil among crypto exchanges”:　　“Founded in 2014,” “12 years of operating history,” “one of the earliest exchanges to introduce Proof of Reserves (PoR),” “maintaining a reserve ratio above 100% for 20 consecutive months,” “a $100 million user protection fund,” “daily trading volume exceeding $1.1 billion in April 2026, surpassing Bitget and MEXC,” “supporting more than 350 cryptocurrencies” — doesnt that sound like the perfect image of a “long-established and reliable major exchange”？　　But on the other side of the story:　　The Seychelles Financial Services Authority (FSA) issued a public warning in March 2026, stating that the company operating Poloniex had already been dissolved on January 1, 2022, and was no longer a legitimate legal entity.　　The U.S. SEC previously fined Poloniex $10 million, accusing it of knowingly operating an unregistered securities trading platform.　　Indias Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU-IND) ordered Poloniex to be blocked for violating anti-money laundering regulations.　　Trustpilot gave Poloniex a score of only 2.0/5,

09-07Deep Dive

WikiBit Exchange Exit Scam Risk List — No. 17: BigONE — Li Xiaolai and “Old Cat’s” “Living Fossil” of the Crypto World: How Did It Become a “Regulatory Blacklist Regular”?

Introduction: The A and B Sides of a “Living Fossil” in Crypto　　Over the first 16 editions, we dug into a series of exchanges ranging from HashKey to Hibt. Today, in the 17th edition, we turn to a genuine crypto “old-timer” — BigONE.　　Its résumé reads like a “living fossil” of the crypto industry: “Founded in 2017,” “the original Yunbi team,” “co-founded by Li Xiaolai and Old Cat (Yu Wenzhuo),” “incubated by INBlockchain (InBlockchain Capital),” “ranked No. 40 globally on CoinMarketCap,” “nine years of operating history,” and “approximately $426 million in Proof of Reserves (PoR).”　　Sounds like a veteran, legitimate crypto institution, right？　　But on the other side of the story — Japans Financial Services Agency (FSA) has repeatedly warned and cracked down on it for “continuing to operate without obtaining a license despite receiving multiple warnings.”　　On September 2, 2026, the Korea Digital Asset Exchange Alliance (DAXA) found that BigONE was allegedly operating in South Korea without registration and called for a police investigation.　　CoinPaprika labels it “not MiCA compliant,” with a confidence score of only 5.76%. WikiBit describes it as operating under “loose regulation.” CoinGecko gives it a Trust Score of 5/10, while Trustpilot rates it just 2/5.　　In July 2025, BigONE suffered a supply-chain

09-04Deep Dive

WikiBit Exchange Exit Scam Risk Report #16 — Hibt: MSB “Sticker Compliance” + 3 Million Users, How Did a “Data Giant” Become a Withdrawal Black Hole?

Introduction: A “Split-Personality” Exchange With Impressive Data and Extremely Difficult Withdrawals　　In the previous 15 editions, we investigated a series of exchanges ranging from HashKey to OrangeX. For the 16th edition, we are looking at one of the most “split-personality” platforms in the crypto industry — Hibt.　　Its resume sounds almost like a crypto “humblebrag” masterpiece:“Registered in Canada in 2021”“Headquartered in Dubai, with operations across Japan, South Korea, and other regions”“Holding Canadian and U.S. MSB registrations”“470+ cryptocurrencies and 500+ trading pairs”“Ranked among the global top 50 exchanges on CoinMarketCap, with over $1 billion in 24-hour spot trading volume”“90% of assets stored in cold wallets”“200+ professional employees”“Serving more than 3 million users worldwide”　　At first glance, this sounds like a platform with the configuration of a top-10 global exchange.　　But on the other side:WikiBit rating: 6.06/10, labeled “No Effective Regulation”Trustpilot rating: 2.2/5, with users openly calling it a “SCAM”Some users report that withdrawal applications have remained under review for more than two months, with funds never returned　　So how did a “data giant” claiming billions in trading volume become a “withdrawal black hole” in users eyes？　　Today, we break it down layer by layer.1. Regulatory Compliance: An MSB Is a “Sticker,” Not a Real License　　Hibts “Compliance Package”

09-03Deep Dive

WikiBit Exchange Exit Scam Risk Ranking #15: OrangeX — Can Two “Compliance Stickers” (Czech VASP + US MSB) Cover Up a Screen Full of “SCAM” Allegations?

Introduction: An Exchange with “Schrödingers Compliance”　　In the previous 14 editions, we investigated a series of exchanges ranging from HashKey to Echobit. In this 15th edition, we take a deep dive into what appears to be a “compliance packaging expert” — OrangeX.　　On paper, OrangeX has an impressive résumé:“Czech VASP license + US MSB registration”“Completed $30 million in funding” ($10 million Series A + $20 million Series B)“Top 50 ranked on CoinMarketCap”“Over $1.5 billion in 24-hour trading volume”“Publicly verifiable Proof of Reserves (PoR)”　　Sounds like a rising star in the regulated crypto industry, right？　　But on the other side:The Seychelles Financial Services Authority (FSA) issued a public warning on October 15, 2025, stating that OrangeX “is not currently authorized” and “has not submitted any application”;Trustpilot gives OrangeX only 1.4/5, with users repeatedly calling it a “SCAM EXCHANGE”;WikiBits risk assessment shows “no confirmed regulation” and “questionable regulatory status”;Users have reported account freezes, blocked withdrawals, and being forced to sign agreements waiving their rights.　　So how can an exchange claiming to hold a “Czech VASP + US MSB dual compliance structure” be publicly questioned by the Seychelles FSA？　　Today, we will break it down layer by layer.1. Regulatory Compliance: Two “Compliance Stickers” Shattered by a Seychelles FSA Warning　　The

09-03Deep Dive

WikiBit Exchange Exit Scam Risk Ranking #14 — Echobit: MSB Stickers + Czech VASP Registration, Can a “Compliance Puzzle” Really Guarantee Safety?

Introduction: A “Schrödinger‘s Compliance” Exchange　　In the first 13 editions, we investigated HashKey (the compliance top student), HTX (a sanctions hotspot), UZX (a DAO penny stock), Phemex (the Morgan Stanley elite), Tapbit (the MSB sticker king), Coincheck (Japan’s survivor exchange), Deepcoin (El Salvador‘s new regulatory outfit), Upbit (South Korea’s national exchange), Azbit (officially exposed by Seychelles FSA), FameEX (the multi-country registration collector), Bitvavo (Europe‘s compliance king), CoinUp (publicly criticized by Yi He), and BiFinance (officially condemned by Hong Kong’s Securities and Futures Commission).　　Along the way, we have seen all kinds of regulatory issues.　　For the 14th edition, we examine a new type of player — the “compliance puzzle” exchange: Echobit.　　On paper, Echobits resume looks impressive:“US + Canada MSB registrations”“Czech VASP registration”“Korea CODE alliance member”“Strategic partnership with Coinone”“200x leverage futures trading”“More than $300 million in daily trading volume”“$20 million venture capital fund”　　Sounds like a rising compliance-focused crypto exchange, right？　　But on the other side of the story:　　Echobit itself admits that there are widespread fake websites, fake apps, and fake Telegram groups impersonating the platform.　　A third-party security platform classified echobit.global as a “high-risk phishing/scam website” with a trust score of only 1/100.　　FXVerify users rated the platform only 1/5, with complaints including:　　“Funds were frozen after making

09-02Deep Dive

WikiBit Exchange Exit Risk Ranking – Issue 13: BiFinance: An Exchange Officially “Hammered” by Hong Kong’s SFC—What Is There Left to Defend?

Introduction: An “Official Certification” from the Regulator Is More Fatal Than Any Negative Review　　In the previous 12 issues, we dug into HashKey (the compliance top student), HTX (a sanctions hotspot), UZX (a DAO penny stock), Phemex (the Morgan Stanley elite), Tapbit (the MSB sticker king), Coincheck (Japan‘s “immortal phoenix”), Deepcoin (the new outfit in El Salvador), Upbit (South Korea’s national exchange), Azbit (officially slapped down by the Seychelles FSA), FameEX (the three-country regulatory sticker collector), Bitvavo (Europe‘s compliance king), and CoinUp (personally “hammered” by He Yi)—and along the way, we’ve seen our fair share of regulatory problems.　　But todays subject takes things to a whole new level: BiFinance.　　Its résumé looks pretty impressive:　　“Top 50 globally on CMC,” “$3.1 billion in 24-hour trading volume,” “Completed Series A and Series B financing,” “Strategic investment from listed companies such as Donghao Asia and Dingyi Group,” “U.S. MSB registration,” and “A leader in the RWA sector.”　　Sounds like the standard résumé of a “star project,” right？　　But on the other side of the story:　　On July 31, 2026, Hong Kongs Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) placed BiFinance on its Alert List of Suspicious Virtual Asset Trading Platforms. The official designation states that BiFinance “is not licensed by the SFC

09-02Deep Dive

1 2 35

...

743