On the same timeline, two seemingly unrelated stories have pushed market sentiment in the same direction: on one side is the withdrawal issues and reserve doubts of centralized platforms. Recently, on-chain detective ZachXBT issued a risk warning regarding AscendEX (formerly BitMax) in the community, citing data sources like Arkham and TRM, which pointed out that AscendEX's associated addresses have extremely low or missing on-chain reserves in mainstream assets such as ETH, USDT, and SOL. Meanwhile, some users reported that their withdrawal requests were delayed for several days or even weeks, with some still unprocessed. In the absence of a formal response from the platform and conclusions from third-party audits, these fragmented clues have been pieced together into ongoing doubts about its operational health; on the other side is the personal-level high-leverage pressure: the well-known NFT collector and trader Ma Ji Da Ge Huang Li Cheng held about 25 times leverage ETH long positions on the derivatives platform Hyperliquid, recently experiencing forced liquidations, with the liquidation price around $1505 and remaining positions of about 680 ETH (according to a single source). According to tools like Hyperbot, his trading win rate over the past month was only about 20%, with net losses exceeding $2.85 million, and an investment return rate of about -62.52%. In a volatile market, the fragility of high-leverage strategies is starkly revealed. One is the withdrawal and reserve controversies tearing at the gap in trust for the platform, while the other is the substantial losses of celebrity accounts exposing the extreme risk preferences of individuals. These two clues converge on the same question: under the dual pressure, the market is being forced to reassess its trust boundaries concerning the safety of platforms and leveraged returns.
Withdrawal queued for weeks: AscendEX questioned for tight funds
In the narrative of the platform, the contradictions quickly focused on the withdrawal experience of AscendEX. As a centralized exchange that has been operating for many years, formerly known as BitMax, it should have a mature mechanism for deposit and withdrawal processes. However, recently, many users reported in the community that their withdrawal requests were stuck in the background for days or even weeks, showing "processing" on the interface but without any on-chain withdrawal records visible. Some claimed that even after communicating with customer service and filing tickets, they still did not receive substantial solutions. This intuitive feeling of "withdrawal queuing" provided a concrete scenario for the originally abstract "reserve anomalies" controversy and amplified users' concerns about the platform’s liquidity status.
On-chain detective ZachXBT started from this user-side anomaly, combining data sources like Arkham and TRM to verify AscendEX's associated addresses' reserves in mainstream assets like ETH, USDT, and SOL, issuing a risk warning in the community, stating that the combination of "withdrawal delays + on-chain reserves being identified as extremely low or missing" is highly concerning. Historical experience shows that when a centralized exchange faces concentrated doubts about withdrawal inefficiencies and is pointed out by third-party data as having doubts about on-chain assets, it is often seen as a potential signal of liquidity pressure, but this signal does not equal a conclusion. So far, there has been no official statement from AscendEX regarding withdrawal delays and reserve doubts, nor any confirmed regulatory investigations disclosed. Risk judgments remain at the level of community oversight and third-party data, forcing investors to adopt a more cautious attitude when interpreting these signs.
On-chain detective and reserve data: Centralized platforms are being made transparent
During the waiting period for AscendEX to respond, on-chain detectives like ZachXBT started to fill the information gap. He sorted through publicly available on-chain data platforms like Arkham and TRM, focusing on the on-chain reserves of main assets such as ETH, USDT, and SOL associated with AscendEX and its addresses. The picture presented by the relevant data sources is that these addresses have limited balances or unclear structures in the above assets. This feeling of “not matching up” was naturally associated with the current withdrawal delays by the community as a signal that requires further vigilance, rather than immediately drawing a conclusion of "hard evidence."
The openness of on-chain reserves allows third parties to make preliminary health assessments of a centralized platform without the exchange's cooperation: whether addresses are reasonably aggregated, if mainstream asset reserves adjust synchronously with withdrawal pressure, and if there are abnormal concentrated transfers. The cryptocurrency community has often juxtaposed these changes in on-chain reserves with their own withdrawal experiences as a reference coordinate for assessing platform risks. Therefore, in the absence of audit reports and official clear statements, AscendEX’s on-chain reserves are seen as one of the few windows for objective review. However, the interpretation surrounding this data still mainly stays at the level of third parties like ZachXBT and community voluntary audits, without forming a unanimous conclusion. The market's judgment about the platform's real situation can only cautiously explore under this limited transparency.
Ma Ji Da Ge’s high-leverage long position suffered huge losses: The cost of a 25x long
Unlike the community still deliberating on the health of platform reserves, Ma Ji Da Ge is facing a personal risk exposure that can be quantified in real time. Public position data shows that he is leveraging about 25 times to long ETH on perpetual contract platforms like Hyperliquid, with a highly concentrated position betting in a single direction. Recently, the market correction reached the forced liquidation range, leading to partial liquidations of this long position, with the liquidation price around $1505. According to a single-source data, the remaining position size that has not yet been liquidated is about 680 ETH, continuing to be exposed to the realm of price volatility, where any further downward movement could trigger new risks.
Even more striking is the actual performance of this high-leverage strategy over the past month. According to trading tracking tools like Hyperbot, Ma Ji Da Ge’s trading win rate over the past month was only about 20%, accumulating net losses exceeding $2.85 million during the frequently entering and exiting process, with an investment return rate of about -62.52%. In such a volatile environment, the 25x leverage amplifies every price fluctuation into a steep drop in the capital curve, and the insufficient win rate compounded with high leverage rapidly turns a celebrity’s performance from a topic halo into a sample of negative returns, further reminding the market: even in a publicly transparent derivatives space, aggressive leverage lacking robust position management can expose structural fragility in volatility.
How celebrity liquidations amplify market panic and risk reflection
When Ma Ji Da Ge, a highly topical NFT collector and trader in the crypto circle, publicly placed a long ETH position leveraged at about 25 times on a derivatives platform, every addition and reduction of his position was not just a personal decision but a "public experiment" observed by thousands of followers. According to tracking of Hyperliquid positions and tools like Hyperbot, his win rate over the past month was only about 20%, with net losses exceeding $2.85 million, and an investment return rate of about -62.52%, with some positions being liquidated around $1505, and currently, about 680 ETH still hanging under high leverage. There is still controversy in the community about the specific numbers of larger-scale losses, but it is certain that this set of on-chain and trading data is impacting followers' psychological expectations in an extremely intuitive way, turning the "celebrity's strategy" from a once-believed sample into a risk sample.
This impact coinciding with discussions about AscendEX's withdrawal delays and reserve anomalies in the same timeframe has forced market participants to reassess two layers of risk simultaneously: First, how much reliance is there on withdrawal efficiency and asset reserve transparency when entrusting funds to a centralized platform; second, where exactly is one's risk boundary when following celebrities and using high leverage? As the community shares ZachXBT's verification of platform reserves while also viewing Ma Ji Da Ge's displayed liquidation curve in real time, the fragility of high-leverage positions and the cost of "celebrity-driven trading" have become amplified reflections. The transparency of the blockchain means that the positional structure and profit and loss fluctuations of personal addresses can no longer be masked by narratives, existing only as cold, hard numbers. This objectively pushes some participants to contract their risk preferences, viewing the celebrity's liquidation as a concentrated risk education on leverage, following, and trust.
Finding new safety boundaries amid trust cracks and deleveraging
The withdrawal delays and reserve controversies of AscendEX have pulled the question of “who to entrust your funds to” back to a scrutinized position from what was once a commonplace choice. The current events remain in the community questioning and on-chain early warning stages, lacking comprehensive explanations from the platform or clear conclusions from audit parties. In this information asymmetry, any withdrawal stalling or any abnormal fluctuations in on-chain reserves will be amplified into an examination of the overall risk management of centralized platforms. In parallel, there is the public case of Ma Ji Da Ge on Hyperliquid, experiencing partial liquidations on a leveraged ETH long position, with a trading win rate of about 20% and net losses exceeding $2.85 million, which starkly reveals the fragility of high leverage in volatile markets and the limitations of “celebrity-backed strategies” as a collective classroom on personal risk boundaries. Moving forward, whether AscendEX provides a more persuasive official response, whether on-chain and trading data can continuously present changes in its reserves and withdrawal status, and whether high-leverage addresses, including Ma Ji Da Ge, reshape their positional structures during the deleveraging process, will all determine how the market redraws a clearer safety boundary between trust in centralized platforms, on-chain transparent oversight, and personal leverage management.
Join our community for discussions and to become stronger together!
Exclusive Hyperliquid benefits for AiCoin: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
Exclusive Aster benefits for AiCoin: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
