A verified Chinese-language X account bearing BitMart’s name has demanded that founder Sheldon Xia publish details of the exchange’s assets, liabilities and available reserves by Aug. 19, escalating questions about customer withdrawals during the platform’s wind-down.
The account alleged that some customers still could not withdraw funds and that some employees had not received final salary or compensation. It called for verifiable wallet, asset and liability disclosures, an independent audit and a repayment timetable. These are allegations from a social-media account whose current control has not been established publicly; they are not proven findings about BitMart’s finances.
Xia rejected the account’s claims in a separate post on Aug. 17, describing them as fabricated and saying evidence had been preserved for a police report and legal request to X. He also said employees were not being prioritized over customers. In an Aug. 8 post, Xia denied misappropriating assets and said the core team was inventorying assets and maintaining systems as part of an orderly wind-down.
Cointelegraph reported that it could not establish who authored the BitMart-branded post or whether the account remained under company control. The publication said it contacted BitMart but had not received an immediate response.
Withdrawal controls become the central test
The dispute matters to payments and custody providers because a platform wind-down is ultimately measured by whether customers can retrieve balances under clear, consistently applied rules. Public statements alone do not establish whether BitMart can meet every customer claim, and no independently audited balance sheet or complete repayment schedule was available in the material reviewed for this article.
For customers and counterparties, the most useful disclosures would separate total customer liabilities from liquid assets available for withdrawal, identify any assets that are restricted or operationally unavailable, and explain the review criteria and expected timing for delayed transfers. A wallet list by itself would not answer those questions because ownership labels, encumbrances and off-chain obligations also affect the position.
The BitMart-branded account asked for the remaining asset total, aggregate liabilities, expected customer recoveries, repayment order and dates, and independent oversight. Those requests set out a disclosure framework, but they do not prove the account’s underlying allegations or establish that a repayment shortfall exists.
Account control remains unresolved
The unusual feature of the episode is that the accusations appeared on a verified account associated with the company while the founder publicly challenged their authenticity. Until BitMart or X provides evidence about account control, the post should not be treated as an authorized corporate statement.
That uncertainty also limits what can be concluded from the Aug. 19 deadline. It is a demand set by the account, not a regulator- or court-imposed deadline in the evidence reviewed. The next material development would be a verifiable company disclosure, independent audit, regulator action or documented change in withdrawal processing—not further unsupported claims from either side.