BitMart Shutdown 2026: Withdrawal Risk, Reserve Evidence and Timeline

BitMart is shutting down its centralized crypto exchange.

That fact is confirmed.

What remains unresolved is whether the exchange can complete the wind-down while satisfying customer withdrawals and other obligations from assets that are liquid, accessible and legally available for repayment.

BitMart announced an “orderly wind-down” on July 26, 2026. New registrations and deposits began shutting down immediately, new spot orders stopped, futures accounts entered reduce-only mode, all trading is scheduled to end on August 26, 2026 at 01:00 UTC, and trading-platform operations are scheduled to cease on January 31, 2027 at 15:59 UTC.

BitMart says withdrawals remain available during the wind-down, but its own notice also states that requests may undergo identity, source-of-funds, wallet-ownership, sanctions and other compliance reviews, and that processing can take longer when withdrawal volume is high.

At the same time, users and counterparties have publicly reported delayed withdrawals, BitMart's former global CEO says he was removed from management two days before the shutdown announcement, founder Sheldon Xia has denied misappropriating customer assets, and a BitMart-branded Chinese-language X account has demanded publication of wallets, assets, liabilities and available reserves.

There is another important regulatory fact.

On August 6, 2026, the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority publicly stated that BitMart and multiple named associated entities “are not, and have never been, registered, licensed, regulated, or otherwise authorised” by CIMA to conduct virtual asset service provider business in or from the Cayman Islands.

As of August 18, 2026, the evidence reviewed by Cexvia does not establish that BitMart has formally entered bankruptcy, that its liabilities exceed its assets, or that management has stolen customer funds.

The evidence does establish a serious exchange-risk event involving:

• A confirmed platform shutdown
• Reported withdrawal delays
• An unresolved Proof-of-Reserves commitment
• Limited public asset-versus-liability information
• A sudden management transition
• A material regulatory clarification from CIMA
• Conflicting public statements from stakeholders around the exchange

The correct question is therefore not:

“Has BitMart already been proven insolvent?”

It has not.

The more useful question is:

“What evidence would demonstrate that BitMart can meet customer obligations during the wind-down?”

Cexvia assessment: what is confirmed and what remains unverified?

Cexvia separates primary evidence, attributed claims and unresolved allegations rather than collapsing them into one narrative.

This distinction is central to Cexvia's research approach.

A shutdown is a fact.

A delayed withdrawal can be a fact for a specific account.

An insolvency allegation is a claim about the exchange's financial condition.

Those are not interchangeable.

BitMart shutdown timeline

1. What BitMart officially announced on July 26

BitMart's own shutdown notice is the primary source for the wind-down schedule.

The exchange said the decision followed an evaluation of:

• Operating conditions
• Market environment
• Future strategic direction

It did not identify a bankruptcy filing, hack or specific regulatory order as the direct cause.

The operational changes began immediately.

July 26, 2026 at 01:30 UTC

BitMart said it would gradually:

• Stop accepting new users
• Suspend cryptocurrency deposits
• Suspend fiat deposits
• Stop accepting new spot orders
• Put futures accounts into reduce-only mode
• Discontinue copy trading, grid trading, API trading and other automated services

August 26, 2026 at 01:00 UTC

BitMart says it will discontinue:

• Spot trading
• Futures trading
• Other trading services

Any remaining futures positions may be settled according to platform rules.

January 31, 2027 at 15:59 UTC

BitMart says trading-platform operations will officially cease.

It also says users will retain account access for a specified period afterward to review records and submit withdrawal requests according to the procedures then in effect.

Official source:

BitMart — Important Notice Regarding the Orderly Cessation of BitMart Operations

2. “Withdrawals remain available” does not mean every withdrawal is immediately executable

This distinction matters.

BitMart's official notice says the withdrawal service remains available after the shutdown announcement.

But the same notice says withdrawal requests can undergo additional review.

BitMart lists possible checks involving:

• Account identity and KYC
• Login devices and IP addresses
• Account security
• Withdrawal addresses
• Blockchain transaction risk
• Source of funds
• Trading history
• Travel Rule compliance
• Sanctions screening
• Proof of address
• Proof of ownership of the destination wallet

It also warns that processing can be extended because of:

• High withdrawal volume
• Additional document requests
• Blockchain congestion
• Compliance review
• Risk review

Most importantly, BitMart states that submitting a withdrawal request does not mean the review has completed or that assets have been broadcast to the blockchain.

That means three different states need to be separated:

Withdrawal function available
        ↓
Withdrawal request accepted
        ↓
Assets actually broadcast / received

They are not the same thing.

For Cexvia, the most important operational evidence is therefore not whether a withdrawal button remains visible.

It is whether submitted withdrawals are completing.

For the broader diagnostic framework, see:

Crypto Exchange Withdrawal Problems: How to Diagnose Delays, Holds and Missing Transfers

3. Withdrawal concerns existed before the shutdown

The July 26 closure did not create the first public withdrawal controversy.

On May 23, BitMart published a statement responding to claims involving withdrawal failures and account restrictions.

BitMart said the complaints mainly related to its handling of an organized volume-farming operation.

According to the exchange, it identified 239 linked accounts that it said were abusing platform incentives.

BitMart said it restricted the accounts and intercepted related funds while normal compliant users remained unaffected.

That is BitMart's explanation.

The May statement is important for another reason.

It directly addressed reserve concerns.

BitMart said users had asked about platform asset reserves and that the exchange was actively preparing a Proof-of-Reserves disclosure.

Official source:

BitMart — Statement on Recent Risk Controls and Asset Transparency

The significance of that commitment increased after BitMart announced its shutdown roughly two months later.

As of the evidence reviewed for this report on August 18, a sufficiently comprehensive public asset-and-liability disclosure resolving the current solvency questions has not been established.

4. The July 15 H1 report makes the shutdown timeline more important

Eleven days before announcing the wind-down, BitMart published an H1 2026 report with expansion-oriented messaging.

Among other claims, BitMart reported:

• Asset-management AUM growth of approximately 256% period over period
• More than 1,900 supported spot assets
• 492 new perpetual futures pairs
• 197 TradFi-linked assets
• Payments and fiat expansion
• Regulatory expansion initiatives

The report quoted then-CEO Nathan “Nenter” Chow saying BitMart intended to remain in business for another eight years.

Official source:

BitMart — H1 2026 Report

The difference between:

July 15:
growth / long-term operating message

and:

July 26:
full exchange wind-down announcement

does not prove misconduct.

It does create a material disclosure question.

What changed during those eleven days?

The shutdown notice does not provide a detailed answer.

For an evidence-based exchange-risk review, the timing is therefore relevant to:

• Governance
• Internal decision-making
• Risk disclosure
• Financial planning
• Management awareness
• User communication

5. BitMart dismantled several services immediately before the shutdown

The official support center shows multiple service changes immediately before July 26.

For example, on July 25 BitMart announced that Spot Margin would be discontinued and instructed users to repay loans and close positions before forced liquidation scheduled for July 26.

Official source:

BitMart — Discontinuation of Spot Margin Trading

The sequence included notices affecting:

• US services
• Automated Market Making
• Inactive-account custody fees
• Spot Margin
• The wider exchange shutdown

A single product closure can be normal.

A rapid cluster of product closures immediately before a full exchange wind-down is more relevant as an operational-risk signal.

It does not independently establish why the company made the decision.

6. Former CEO Nenter Chow says he was removed before the shutdown announcement

Governance became part of the story after BitMart's global CEO made his own public statement.

Nenter Chow said that on July 24 he was informed that his employment as Global CEO was being terminated and that offboarding would begin immediately.

He said that from that point he had no role in management or decision-making and was not consulted on the wind-down.

He also said he learned about BitMart's shutdown when the public announcement appeared.

Primary source:

Nenter Chow — July 2026 statement on X

If accurate, that creates obvious governance questions:

• When was the shutdown decision made?
• Who approved it?
• Which management body had authority?
• When did senior executives become aware of the wind-down?
• What internal information existed before the July 15 H1 report?
• What information was available before product closures began?

Cexvia does not infer the answers from the leadership change.

The relevant point is that an abrupt executive departure immediately before an exchange shutdown is a material event requiring explanation.

7. CIMA's August 6 notice materially changes the regulatory picture

This is one of the strongest primary-source facts in the current BitMart case.

On August 6, 2026, the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority issued a public notice after receiving complaints involving references to BitMart and its purported Cayman regulatory status.

CIMA named:

• BitMart
• BitMart Exchange
• GBM Global Inc.
• bachi.tech Ltd
• Bachi.Tech Corporation
• GBM Global Ltd
• GBM Foundation Company Ltd.
• GBM Foundation Company
• GBM Global Holding Company Limited
• GBM Global

CIMA stated that these entities are not, and have never been, registered, licensed, regulated or otherwise authorised by CIMA to conduct virtual asset service provider business in or from the Cayman Islands.

Official source:

Cayman Islands Monetary Authority — BitMart Not Regulated by CIMA

What this means

It means CIMA should not be presented as BitMart's Cayman VASP regulator.

It does not, by itself, answer:

• Whether other BitMart group entities hold permissions elsewhere
• Which entity serves every customer
• Whether the shutdown reflects financial distress
• Whether customer assets are missing

Those are separate questions.

Why it matters for Cexvia

This is exactly why Cexvia separates:

Brand
→ Legal Entity
→ Jurisdiction
→ Regulator
→ Record Type
→ Service Scope

A company can be incorporated or legally connected to a jurisdiction without being authorised there as a crypto exchange or VASP.

For the verification framework:

How to Verify a Crypto Exchange License: Entity, Scope and Domain Checks

8. Reported withdrawal delays became the central operational question

An orderly exchange shutdown is possible.

The key test is whether customer obligations can be settled.

After the July 26 announcement, Cointelegraph reported multiple users saying withdrawals were taking longer than usual.

It also reported that Arkham-attributed BitMart wallets held approximately:

• $102 million on July 6
• $71 million around July 26

At the July 26 snapshot, Cointelegraph said approximately $41.5 million of the attributed assets consisted of WFI tokens, while about $91,000 was USDT.

Source:

Cointelegraph — BitMart to Wind Down Exchange

These figures need careful interpretation.

They do not prove that $31 million was lost

Wallet attribution datasets can be incomplete.

Movement out of known wallets can reflect:

• Customer withdrawals
• Internal consolidation
• Transfers to previously unlabelled wallets
• Custody changes
• Asset conversions
• Other operational activity

They do not prove solvency either

A known-wallet balance answers only:

What was visible in these attributed addresses?

It does not answer:

What are BitMart's total customer and corporate liabilities?

The correct use of on-chain data is as one evidence layer—not as the whole balance sheet.

9. OpenGradient's insolvency claim is important, but remains an allegation

In August, OpenGradient co-founder Matthew Wang publicly said his market-making team had funds stuck on BitMart and alleged the exchange was insolvent.

Other reports have also described delayed withdrawals involving Scandic Coin.

These claims matter because they involve counterparties or projects rather than only anonymous social-media complaints.

But Cexvia does not convert them into a confirmed insolvency finding.

What is established

• A named market participant publicly says funds cannot be withdrawn.
• He has publicly characterized BitMart as insolvent.
• Other counterparties have reported delayed withdrawals.

What is not established

• The size of BitMart's full customer liabilities
• BitMart's complete asset position
• The liquidity of all assets
• Whether assets are encumbered
• Whether liabilities exceed assets
• Whether a court or auditor has found insolvency

An insolvency conclusion requires stronger balance-sheet or legal evidence than a withdrawal complaint.

10. Sheldon Xia denies misappropriation and says assets are being inventoried

On August 8, BitMart founder Sheldon Xia responded publicly.

He said the core team was conducting:

• Asset inventory
• Asset consolidation
• System maintenance

with the goal of an orderly wind-down.

He also rejected allegations that BitMart had disappeared or misappropriated customer assets.

Primary source:

Sheldon Xia — BitMart statements on X

That response is relevant evidence about management's position.

It does not independently establish the exchange's financial condition.

To resolve the solvency question, users would need evidence that can be verified independently.

Examples include:

• Controlled wallet addresses
• Customer-liability totals
• Other liabilities
• Asset quality
• Encumbrances
• Legal entity scope
• Independent assurance
• Withdrawal queue data
• Repayment timetable

A management assurance is not a balance sheet.

11. The August 17 BitMart-branded X post raises a separate governance question

On August 17, BitMart's Chinese-language X account published a message demanding that founder Sheldon Xia explain customer funds and provide a repayment plan.

According to Cointelegraph, the post called for disclosure of:

• Wallets
• Assets
• Liabilities
• Available reserves

It also alleged that some users remained unable to withdraw and that some employees had not received final salary or compensation.

The post said evidence could be submitted to regulators, law enforcement, lawyers and media if satisfactory disclosure was not provided.

Source:

Cointelegraph — BitMart Account Demands Founder Explain Funds Status

The authorship problem

Cointelegraph also reported that it was unclear:

• Who authored the message
• Whether the account remained under company control

Sheldon Xia subsequently described the claims as fabricated.

Therefore the correct evidence label is:

Confirmed:
The BitMart-branded account published the statement.

Unconfirmed:
Who controlled the account and whether the allegations are accurate.

That distinction should remain visible.

12. Proof of Reserves alone would not settle the BitMart solvency question

BitMart's May commitment to publish Proof of Reserves has become a major focus.

But even if a reserve report appears, the correct question is not simply:

Does BitMart have assets?

The relevant equation is closer to:

Liquid and accessible assets
        vs
customer liabilities
+
other relevant liabilities

A useful disclosure would need to address:

Assets

• BTC
• ETH
• Stablecoins
• Other crypto
• Fiat
• Custody assets
• Wallet addresses

Asset quality

• Market liquidity
• Concentration
• Exchange-related tokens
• Thinly traded assets
• Encumbrances

Customer liabilities

• Spot balances
• Earn balances
• Staking balances
• Lending balances
• Margin balances
• Institutional balances
• Market-maker balances

Other liabilities

• Loans
• Vendor obligations
• Employee obligations
• Legal claims
• Affiliate obligations
• Other creditors

Legal and operational access

• Which entity controls each asset?
• Can the asset be transferred?
• Is it pledged?
• Is it subject to legal restrictions?
• Is it available for customer repayment?

For Cexvia's full framework:

Proof of Reserves Explained: What It Proves, What It Misses and How to Compare Exchanges

13. Why known wallet balances are not enough

Suppose an exchange has:

Known on-chain wallets:
$50 million

That figure is not interpretable without the denominator.

Scenario A

Customer + relevant liabilities:
$30 million

Liquid accessible assets:
$50 million

This could indicate substantial coverage.

Scenario B

Customer + relevant liabilities:
$120 million

Liquid accessible assets:
$50 million

The same wallet balance would indicate something very different.

Now add asset quality.

Scenario C

Known wallet value:
$50 million

Highly liquid BTC/stablecoins:
$45 million

Thin or affiliated tokens:
$5 million

Scenario D

Known wallet value:
$50 million

Highly liquid BTC/stablecoins:
$5 million

Thin tokens:
$45 million

Again, the headline wallet value is identical.

The liquidity profile is not.

This is why Cexvia does not treat public-wallet totals as a solvency certificate.

14. Is BitMart insolvent?

Not established as of August 18, 2026.

There are meaningful risk signals:

• A confirmed exchange shutdown
• Reported withdrawal delays
• Named counterparties reporting inaccessible funds
• An unresolved reserve-transparency commitment
• Lack of a publicly reconciled asset-and-liability position
• Abrupt management changes
• CIMA's clarification that BitMart and named Cayman-linked entities were never authorised by CIMA for VASP business
• A public dispute involving a BitMart-branded social account

But these signals do not produce a mathematical insolvency conclusion.

To establish insolvency, stronger evidence would normally include one or more of:

• Audited or independently verified financial statements
• Reliable asset-and-liability reconciliation
• Formal insolvency filing
• Court finding
• Administrator or liquidator report
• Credible evidence that liabilities exceed available assets
• Admission of inability to meet obligations

None of that has been established in the evidence reviewed for this article.

Cexvia conclusion

The correct status is:

Solvency unresolved; material transparency and withdrawal risk remain.

Not:

Insolvency confirmed.

15. Has BitMart been proven to be an exit scam?

No.

An exit scam is a stronger allegation than an exchange shutdown or even a liquidity crisis.

It implies intentional misappropriation or abandonment.

The current evidence does not establish that management intentionally stole customer assets and disappeared.

Founder Sheldon Xia remains publicly active and has denied misappropriation.

BitMart continues to publish a formal shutdown process.

That does not mean customer risk is low.

It means the evidence supports a more precise description:

BitMart is undergoing a confirmed exchange wind-down while facing significant withdrawal complaints, unresolved reserve transparency, regulatory clarification and unverified solvency allegations.

That wording is stronger analytically because every part can be tied to evidence.

16. Cexvia Risk Radar: how the BitMart case should be classified

Cexvia Risk Radar is designed around evidence-backed events rather than unverified social posts.

Its monitoring taxonomy includes:

• Withdrawal suspension
• Material reserve decline
• Executive departure or disappearance
• Customer-support failure
• Verified complaint cluster
• Fiat channel closure
• Bankruptcy, liquidation or shutdown

The BitMart case touches several of these signal families.

Confirmed signal

Bankruptcy, liquidation or shutdown

BitMart's shutdown is official.

That does not mean BitMart is bankrupt; the category includes shutdown as a separate event type.

Reported / requires continued evidence review

Withdrawal disruption

Multiple reports exist, but individual account restrictions and exchange-wide withdrawal suspension must be distinguished.

Material reserve change

Third-party attributed-wallet balances changed materially, but wallet attribution is incomplete and cannot establish the full reserve position.

Executive departure

The CEO departure is confirmed by Nenter Chow's statement.

Complaint cluster

Multiple reports exist from users and counterparties; evidence should continue to be validated and de-duplicated.

Cexvia Risk Radar explicitly separates monitored signals from published, verified events.

Cexvia Risk Radar

17. What evidence would materially improve the BitMart assessment?

The most useful next disclosure would not be another general statement.

It would be verifiable reconciliation.

A. Asset inventory

Publish:

wallet
asset
balance
custodian
legal owner
entity
encumbrance status
valuation date

B. Customer liabilities

Publish reconciled totals for:

• Spot
• Futures collateral
• Earn
• Lending
• Staking
• Institutional accounts
• Market makers
• Other customer balances

C. Non-customer liabilities

Clarify:

• Loans
• Vendor balances
• Payroll
• Tax
• Legal claims
• Affiliate obligations
• Other creditors

D. Withdrawal queue

Publish aggregate data showing:

• Number of requests
• Value requested
• Value completed
• Value pending
• Median processing time
• Assets/networks with restrictions
• Number under compliance review

without exposing customer identities.

E. Independent assurance

Provide:

• Auditor or assessor name
• Professional standard
• Scope
• Procedures
• Date
• Exceptions
• Limitations

F. Repayment plan

If withdrawals cannot all be completed immediately, disclose:

• Priority rules
• Asset conversion rules
• Timeline
• Legal entity responsible
• Appeals process
• Claims process

Those disclosures would move the situation from assertion toward measurable evidence.

18. What BitMart users should verify now

Users with assets on the platform should focus on evidence they can preserve and actions they can verify.

1. Confirm the official withdrawal procedure

Use BitMart's authenticated app or official domain.

Do not use withdrawal addresses or support links supplied through unsolicited private messages.

2. Save the account state

Preserve:

asset balances
fiat balances
open positions
Earn / staking balances
withdrawal limits
withdrawal status

3. Save each withdrawal request

Record:

withdrawal ID
asset
network
amount
destination address
request time
status
transaction hash, if issued

4. Distinguish “submitted” from “broadcast”

If no blockchain transaction hash exists, the withdrawal has not yet been independently evidenced as an on-chain transfer.

5. Preserve KYC/compliance correspondence

If BitMart requests source-of-funds, proof-of-address, wallet-ownership or identity documents, save both the request and submission confirmation.

6. Do not create conflicting evidence

Avoid:

• Duplicate accounts
• False residence information
• VPN-based circumvention
• Inconsistent source-of-funds explanations

These can complicate legitimate reviews.

7. Do not pay an unofficial “unlock” or recovery fee

A shutdown environment creates opportunities for impersonators.

Do not send crypto to a private contact claiming they can prioritize the withdrawal, unlock the account, recover the balance, bypass compliance or obtain insider access.

For secondary scam risk:

Crypto Recovery Scams: How to Verify Recovery Firms, Lawyers and Investigators

19. The three dates that matter next

August 19, 2026 — demanded disclosure deadline

The BitMart-branded Chinese X account set August 19 as a deadline for answers concerning assets, liabilities and repayment.

As of this article's August 18 update, that date has not passed.

Cexvia should therefore treat any claimed August 19 outcome as pending, not as established fact.

The relevant development would be verifiable disclosure rather than another unsupported statement.

August 26, 2026 — trading ends

BitMart says all trading will stop at:

01:00 UTC

It recommends submitting withdrawal requests before:

05:00 UTC

The operational evidence around this date will be particularly important.

Watch:

• Withdrawal completion rate
• Network availability
• New review requirements
• Product redemption
• Forced settlement
• New deadlines
• Official status changes

January 31, 2027 — planned platform closure

BitMart says trading-platform operations will cease at:

15:59 UTC

Whether the company reaches that date through an orderly customer settlement remains unresolved.

20. What would change Cexvia's conclusion?

Evidence that would reduce concern

Examples:

• Comprehensive independently verified asset/liability reconciliation
• High completion rate for withdrawal requests
• Clear repayment schedule
• Current liquid reserve evidence
• Transparent legal-entity mapping
• No material asset shortfall
• Independent assurance with meaningful scope

Evidence that would increase concern

Examples:

• Broad verified withdrawal failures
• Further material reserve depletion without explanation
• Formal insolvency or liquidation filing
• Regulator or court action
• Evidence of customer-asset misuse
• Unexplained transfer of customer assets
• Failure to meet published repayment commitments
• Loss of access to customer records or support
• Contradictory asset/liability disclosures

Cexvia's assessment should change with evidence.

It should not be fixed by social-media sentiment.

Frequently asked questions

Is BitMart shutting down?

Yes.

BitMart announced an orderly wind-down on July 26, 2026. It says all trading will stop on August 26, 2026 and trading-platform operations will cease on January 31, 2027.

Can users still withdraw from BitMart?

BitMart says withdrawals remain available.

However, the exchange also says withdrawals can undergo identity, source-of-funds, wallet, sanctions and security reviews, and users and counterparties have publicly reported delays.

The relevant evidence for an individual user is whether the withdrawal actually completes.

When should BitMart users submit withdrawals?

BitMart recommends submitting withdrawal requests before 05:00 UTC on August 26, 2026.

Users should verify the current notice directly because shutdown procedures can change.

Is BitMart insolvent?

It has not been independently established as insolvent in the evidence reviewed by Cexvia as of August 18, 2026.

A named market participant has alleged insolvency, but a complete independently verified asset-and-liability position has not been published.

Has BitMart declared bankruptcy?

No formal bankruptcy filing has been established in the evidence reviewed for this article.

A shutdown should not automatically be described as bankruptcy.

Did BitMart run away with customer funds?

That has not been proven.

Founder Sheldon Xia has publicly denied misappropriation and says the team is inventorying and consolidating assets.

The unresolved issue is whether BitMart can independently demonstrate enough accessible assets to satisfy its obligations.

Is BitMart regulated in the Cayman Islands?

CIMA issued an official notice on August 6, 2026 saying BitMart and multiple named associated entities have never been registered, licensed, regulated or otherwise authorised by CIMA to conduct VASP business in or from the Cayman Islands.

Did BitMart promise Proof of Reserves?

Yes.

In a May 23 statement, BitMart said it was preparing to publish Proof of Reserves.

The key question now is not only whether a PoR report appears, but whether the disclosure provides meaningful evidence about liabilities, asset quality, control and accessibility.

Does Proof of Reserves prove BitMart is solvent?

No.

Proof of Reserves can provide evidence about covered assets and customer balances at a specified time.

A solvency assessment requires broader evidence about liabilities, asset quality, encumbrances and the relevant legal entities.

Why are known BitMart wallet balances not enough?

Third-party wallet attribution can be incomplete.

Even a correct asset balance cannot establish solvency without knowing the liabilities that those assets need to cover.

Is the August 19 deadline official BitMart policy?

It was published by a BitMart-branded Chinese-language X account, but public reporting says the authorship and control of that account were unclear.

Cexvia therefore treats the deadline as part of the public dispute, not as an independently verified company repayment commitment.

Conclusion

BitMart's 2026 shutdown is a confirmed exchange-risk event.

Its insolvency is not a confirmed fact.

That distinction matters.

The current evidence shows:

confirmed shutdown + reported withdrawal disruption + unresolved reserve transparency + governance uncertainty + a material Cayman regulatory clarification

What it does not yet show is a verified balance sheet proving that liabilities exceed assets or that customer assets were intentionally misappropriated.

The key Cexvia question is therefore:

Can BitMart demonstrate—through independently verifiable evidence—that liquid and accessible assets are sufficient to satisfy customer and other relevant liabilities during the wind-down?

Until that question is answered, wallet screenshots, management assurances and individual withdrawal complaints each remain incomplete pieces of the same risk assessment.

Users should monitor actual withdrawal completion, preserve account evidence and rely on primary regulatory and company records where possible.

Cexvia will treat new claims as signals first and confirmed events only when the underlying entity, scope and evidence can be verified.

Related Cexvia resources:

• [Cexvia Risk Radar](/risk-alerts)
• [Cexvia Exchange Risk Profiles](/exchanges)
• [Cexvia Methodology](/methodology)
• [Proof of Reserves Explained](/research/proof-of-reserves-assets-liabilities-solvency)
• [Crypto Exchange Withdrawal Problems](/research/crypto-exchange-withdrawal-delays-holds-missing-transfers)
• [Crypto Exchange Account Frozen](/research/crypto-exchange-account-freeze-compliance-security-holds)
• [How to Verify a Crypto Exchange License](/research/crypto-exchange-license-verification-entity-scope-domain)

Primary sources and supporting evidence

Primary sources

• BitMart — Important Notice Regarding the Orderly Cessation of BitMart Operations
• BitMart — Statement on Recent Risk Controls and Asset Transparency
• BitMart — H1 2026 Report
• BitMart — Discontinuation of Spot Margin Trading Service
• Cayman Islands Monetary Authority — BitMart Not Regulated by CIMA
• Nenter Chow — Statement on BitMart Wind-Down
• Sheldon Xia — X Account

Supporting reporting

• Cointelegraph — BitMart to Wind Down Exchange, End Trading by Aug. 26
• Cointelegraph — BitMart Account Demands Founder Explain Funds Status
• Cexvia — Risk Radar
• Cexvia — Methodology

*Cexvia evaluates centralized exchanges using publicly verifiable evidence across regulatory standing, corporate transparency, asset and solvency transparency, security history, and operations and user protection. A shutdown, withdrawal delay or social-media allegation is not automatically proof of insolvency or asset misappropriation. This article reflects evidence reviewed through August 18, 2026 and should be updated when new primary-source information becomes available.*