There’s a specific kind of crisis that unfolds when BitMart’s own official channels start turning against its leadership in public.
That’s exactly what happened when the exchange’s Chinese-language account posted a formal, numbered ultimatum directly at its own CEOs, demanding answers by a hard deadline while accusing them of leaving users locked out of their funds and employees unpaid.
Then ZachXBT weighed in, and the response from BitMart’s CEO didn’t do much to calm anyone down.
A Public Ultimatum From BitMart’s Own Account
The demand came directly from BitMart’s official Chinese account, addressed specifically to co-founders Sheldon (Erte) Xia and Nancy (Yi) Li.
The post laid out five specific demands, all requiring a response by August 19. First, it demanded a full, independently verifiable accounting of user funds, disclosed wallets, disclosed assets, disclosed liabilities, and disclosed usable reserves, rather than what it called vague verbal assurances.
Second, it asked who decided to restrict withdrawals, when that decision was made, and whether management kept encouraging deposits and trading after knowing the platform could no longer process them normally.
Third, it called for a full investigation into any funds tied to linked accounts, related companies, or trusts, arguing that money originating from user assets shouldn’t escape scrutiny just because it moved into a different name.
Fourth, it demanded BitMart pay employees their outstanding salaries and compensation in full, arguing rank-and-file staff didn’t make the decisions that led here and shouldn’t absorb the consequences.
Fifth, it demanded a concrete, executable repayment plan, specific numbers on remaining assets, total liabilities, payout order, start and completion dates, and a willingness to accept independent third-party audits.
The Allegations Aimed Directly At Yi Li
The post went further than a general accountability demand, raising specific, unverified allegations directly against Yi Li. It pointed to her past social media posts showing luxury watches, fine wines, diamond rings, and high-end hotel stays, stating plainly that spending money isn’t itself a crime. But it then referenced unverified materials allegedly showing BitMart-linked accounts connected to her holding tens of millions of dollars in assets, with records of batch withdrawals, and demanded she clarify directly whether those records were fabricated, and if real, whose assets they were, where the funds originated, and whether they had any connection to user funds.
These are allegations raised publicly by BitMart’s own account, not independently confirmed facts, and the post itself acknowledged that no criminal accusation should be made before evidence is complete. That distinction matters enormously here, and it’s worth holding onto as this story develops.
Sheldon’s Response, And Why It Didn’t Settle Anything
Sheldon Xia responded directly, stating that the team had collected full evidence showing the content posted was fabricated rumors, and that during US daytime hours they would file a police report and send a lawyer’s letter demanding technical and data forensics. He asked people to be patient and wait for further announcements on other matters, and added one specific line that stood out: employee assets are not prioritized over client assets, since everyone is treated as a client with no privileges.
That response leaves a genuinely large gap unaddressed. Calling the post fabricated rumors doesn’t, on its own, provide the wallet disclosures, liability breakdown, or repayment timeline the original demand asked for. It’s a denial of the specific allegations against Yi Li, but it doesn’t answer the broader, more basic questions about why users still can’t withdraw funds or when employees will actually get paid.
ZachXBT’s Direct Challenge
ZachXBT didn’t let that response pass quietly either. ZachXBT challenged Sheldon directly, asking a simple, pointed question: if BitMart actually has the liquidity, why not simply return the funds to everyone instead of posting vague statements. He added that Sheldon’s actions have caused real people to lose access to their funds with little transparency provided in return.
ZachXBT’s framing cuts straight to the heart of what makes this situation different from a typical exchange dispute. A denial of specific allegations against one executive doesn’t resolve the underlying, verifiable question everyone actually wants answered: does BitMart have the money, and if so, why hasn’t it been returned.
The Backdrop: An Exchange That’s Already Winding Down
This dispute isn’t happening in isolation. BitMart announced an orderly wind-down after nine years running the exchange, a closure that sent its BMX token crashing sharply. That earlier announcement cited operating conditions, market environment, and future strategic direction, without pointing to any specific insolvency event, hack, or regulatory action.
That context is exactly why this public ultimatum landed as hard as it did. A wind-down framed as an orderly business decision reads very differently once users say they still can’t access their own funds weeks later, and once employees say they’re still waiting on pay owed to them. The original post captured that tension plainly: this isn’t a business dispute that can be brushed off with a single ceasing-operations statement, when what’s actually at stake for ordinary users may represent a lifetime of savings, and what’s owed to staff is rent and next month’s living expenses.
What August 19 Actually Means For Everyone Involved
The honest way to read where this stands right now is this: BitMart’s own account has set a public, specific deadline, and named specific evidence it says it will pursue, regulators, law enforcement, lawyers, and media worldwide, if that deadline passes without a full, transparent, independently verifiable disclosure. Sheldon has denied the specific allegations tied to Yi Li and promised legal action against the claims themselves, but hasn’t yet provided the wallet disclosures, liability accounting, or repayment timeline the original post demanded. ZachXBT’s involvement adds real weight to the public pressure here, given his track record of following exactly this kind of situation through to its conclusion on other exchanges.
Whatever the truth turns out to be about the specific allegations against Yi Li, the more fundamental question raised by BitMart’s own account remains completely unanswered as of now: where exactly is the money, and when, if ever, does it come back. That’s the question users and former employees are actually owed an answer to by August 19, regardless of how the dispute over rumors and denials plays out around it.
NEW UPDATE
BitMart’s Own Account Fires Back: “Police Reports Don’t Prove Assets”
Rather than let Sheldon’s response stand, BitMart’s own account came back at him again, and this reply was noticeably sharper and more specific than the first. It opened by directly rejecting the idea that a promised police report or lawyer’s letter counts as an answer to anything. As the account put it, reporting to the police cannot replace asset proof, a lawyer’s letter cannot replace fund flow records, and the next announcement cannot replace the money users are still waiting for.
The follow-up narrowed the entire dispute down to two questions, stripped of anything else. First: where exactly are the users’ assets? If BitMart still holds enough to cover every balance, the account is demanding full, independently verifiable disclosure of total assets, total liabilities, major wallet addresses, usable reserves, and a complete, executable repayment schedule. And if the swirling claims about linked accounts, tens of millions in assets, and batch withdrawals are genuinely false, the account said that calling them “rumors” isn’t enough. Instead, it’s asking Sheldon and Yi Li to state plainly whether either of them has ever completed KYC on, held, controlled, or personally benefited from any BitMart account, with a direct denial if the answer is no, or full, redacted-but-verifiable account records if the answer is yes, covering balances, deposits, withdrawals, timing, and the source of the funds.
Second: when do employees actually get paid? The account pushed back specifically on Sheldon’s line about employees having “no privileges,” arguing he’d conflated two separate issues. Employee-held assets on the platform, it said, should be treated exactly like any other user’s, nobody disputes that. But wages already earned for work already done, and compensation legally owed, aren’t a matter of client-asset priority at all; that’s simply pay employees are owed for labor they already provided. The account is now asking for a specific payment date, not another promise to “wait for the announcement.”
The tone of the follow-up was notably blunt in its closing lines: Sheldon saying everything is rumors means proving it with verifiable evidence; saying BitMart still has assets means publishing the numbers and the repayment plan; saying employees get no special treatment is something the account agrees with, but what employees and users actually want, it said, isn’t another statement. It’s the money itself.
Disclosure: This is not trading or investment advice. Always do your research before buying any cryptocurrency or investing in any services. Follow us on X @nulltxnews
