Bitget got hacked. Chat had one question.

Sir, this is a security incident

I keep coming back to this clip. Gracy Chen is dealing with a hack at Bitget, and someone has decided this is a good time to find out whether the CEO is available.

In DeFi Warhol’s September 25 post, her answer is quoted as: “Yes I’m single but this doesn’t concern you.”

The exchange paused withdrawals and this man tried to make a connection.

I respect how quickly she shut that down. Somewhere there’s a crisis communications document with no useful advice for this exact moment.

First, the number got worse

The headline was roughly $350 million. Bitget’s initial estimate was $351.6 million. In its September 25 update, the exchange revised that to $387.5 million.

Bitget says the difference came from adding Zcash and TRON transfers to the count, rather than another round of theft. An extra $35.9 million found while doing the paperwork. I get annoyed when I discover another subscription.

Its initial security notice says unauthorized transfers were detected at 18:31 UTC on September 24, 2026. Withdrawals were paused. Bitget said its cold wallets were secure and that its protection fund covered the loss.

Those are Bitget’s assurances. The stolen amount is not a confirmed $387.5 million loss passed on to customers. I’d still hate to be refreshing the withdrawal page while everyone else is farming jokes.

About that Hyperliquid tweet

Then there’s the post you really don’t want people pulling up during your security incident.

On March 26, 2025, UTC, Gracy wrote: “Hyperliquid may be on track to become FTX 2.0.”

She was criticizing Hyperliquid’s handling of the JELLY market. Her post objected to closing the market and forcing settlement, and questioned the platform’s risk controls. That’s the context behind the jab.

But calling another exchange the next FTX is a hell of a sentence to leave lying around on the internet.

A year and a half later, your own exchange is explaining missing funds. You can almost hear people opening the bookmarks folder.

That’s where the jab backfires. You wanted people to remember that line. Unfortunately, they did.

Jeff had an older receipt

And then Jeff Yan’s post turns up. This one is from April 5, 2023. Yes, 2023.

The Hyperliquid co-founder responded to news of Dragonfly’s investment in Bitget with a thread ending its opening post: “Bitget may be the next FTX.”

So Jeff used the comparison about Bitget in 2023. Gracy used it about Hyperliquid in 2025. By 2026, I need dates underneath the screenshots just to keep track of who called whom FTX first.

In the archived thread, Jeff alleged problems with Bitget’s matching engine and internal handling of customer orders, drawing on his team’s trading experience. Those were allegations about how the exchange operated. They were not a warning about the wallet exploit reported this week.

I wouldn’t turn this into “Jeff predicted the hack.” He didn’t describe this attack. And a hack doesn’t establish that his earlier allegations were true.

The old post is still a spectacularly awkward thing for Bitget to have circulating right now. It doesn’t need a fake prophecy attached.

The people waiting to withdraw

I’m laughing at the chat guy and the exchange CEOs leaving each other terrible future screenshots. If you had money sitting on Bitget when this happened, I hope you get all of it back without another minute of this nonsense.

Bitget’s September 25 update said it had fixed the vulnerability and was preparing to restore withdrawals after security checks. That statement isn’t confirmation that withdrawals have resumed. Check the official incident update for the latest status.

For all the FTX references flying around, a security breach alone is not evidence of an FTX-style fraud or insolvency. We can enjoy an old tweet aging badly without pretending those are the same thing.

Still. $387.5 million, two exchange executives’ worth of receipts, and one guy treating the emergency livestream like Hinge.

“This doesn’t concern you” was a very polite answer.