News linked to both this project and an event.
According to Cointelegraph, BitMEX was sued in a class-action lawsuit by BKX Services Inc. and David Namdar in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on July 24. The plaintiffs allege that BitMEX's internal trading team used privileged access during server freezes to illegally obtain customer Bitcoin collateral by manipulating the forced liquidation mechanism. The two plaintiffs suffered a combined loss of 622.66 BTC (BKX lost at least 305.81 BTC, and Namdar lost over 316.85 BTC). The plaintiffs demand the return of the seized Bitcoin and seek compensatory and punitive damages, representing U.S. users who purchased BTC swap products since July 23, 2018. Notably, the lawsuit was filed on the same day as the announcement of BitMEX's closure—BitMEX's parent company HDR Global Trading announced it will cease services on September 23 and has stopped accepting new user registrations. Following the announcement, the price of its BMEX token plummeted by approximately 90%.
According to blockchain data analytics platform Bubblemaps, after BitMEX announced its closure, the price of its platform token BMEX dropped significantly, falling approximately 95% from its previous levels. However, based on the tokenomics publicly disclosed by BitMEX, about 75% of the total BMEX supply was originally planned for employee incentives, ecosystem development, and long-term reserves, but these tokens were never distributed on-chain. Data shows that approximately 92% of the BMEX supply was locked in vesting contracts in 2021, with the remaining 8% distributed at the token launch, including: 5% for airdrops and 3% for product and liquidity support.On November 2, 2022, the product and liquidity address claimed approximately 63.75 million BMEX, while addresses designated for employee incentives, ecosystem growth, and long-term reserves did not claim any tokens. Bubblemaps stated that this does not necessarily indicate a problem, as the project may have subsequently adjusted its tokenomics, contracts, or distribution plans, which were not reflected on-chain.
CZ expressed regret over BitMEX's closure announcement, recalling that BitMEX pioneered the 100x leveraged perpetual contract in the crypto market in 2014, driving industry development.CZ noted that BitMEX only supported BTC deposits and single-chain operations at the time, and adopted a once-daily, multi-signature wallet batch withdrawal process. These seemingly inconvenient designs, he said, actually helped the platform avoid hacker attacks over the long term.He also mentioned that BitMEX's four co-founders admitted to violating the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) one month before their trial, each being fined $10 million and sentenced to home detention, with no prison time. However, CZ believes that BitMEX's business ultimately couldn't withstand the "War on Crypto" during the Biden administration.In conclusion, CZ stated that BitMEX is currently winding down in an orderly fashion, users can still withdraw assets, and he paid tribute to co-founder Arthur Hayes.
BitMEX announced that it will officially close the exchange on September 23, 2026, at 04:00 (UTC), and has immediately halted new account registrations. The platform stated that users should close open positions and withdraw funds as soon as possible. Starting from August 26 at 04:00 (UTC), the platform will implement risk restrictions, prohibiting opening new positions and only allowing position reduction; before closure, the platform will also gradually forcibly liquidate existing positions. For users who have completed identity verification but have not withdrawn assets after the closure time, the platform will charge account fees at a rate of USD 50 equivalent per month or 1% annualized (whichever is higher).
According to CoinDesk, while quantum computers cannot break Bitcoin’s mining mechanism or blockchain ledger, they could potentially crack the elliptic curve cryptography (ECC) that secures wallet ownership—using Shor’s algorithm. Currently, approximately 6.9 million BTC—roughly one-third of the total supply—are at potential risk because their public keys are already visible on-chain; this includes Satoshi Nakamoto’s estimated early holdings of about 1 million BTC. Transactions generated after Ethereum’s 2021 Taproot upgrade are similarly exposed due to public key disclosure. Ethereum has maintained an official post-quantum migration plan since 2018, with four full-time teams and over ten independent development groups, and operates a dedicated progress website at pq.ethereum.org. In contrast, Bitcoin currently lacks a unified roadmap for quantum resistance: existing proposals such as BIP-360 and BitMEX Research’s detection framework have not gained broad support among core developers. Prominent Bitcoin advocate Nic Carter has bluntly labeled Bitcoin’s quantum response “the worst,” while Blockstream CEO Adam Back acknowledges that current quantum systems remain confined to laboratory settings—but still endorses deploying optional upgrade paths in advance. Analysts note that Bitcoin’s decentralized governance culture makes coordinating large-scale security upgrades extremely difficult, and resolving historical issues—such as how to handle Satoshi’s holdings—presents a particularly thorny dilemma. A related Google paper warns that once quantum attacks become feasible, the window for effective response may already have closed.
BitMEX Research published an article proposing an alternative soft fork to BIP-361, suggesting that dormant bitcoins vulnerable to quantum attacks be frozen only upon confirmed existence of a quantum computer capable of stealing bitcoins. The proposal introduces a “canary fund” mechanism: a special bitcoin address whose private key is unknown but theoretically crackable by a sufficiently powerful quantum computer; users may donate BTC to this address as a bounty. If funds are spent from this address, it signals confirmed quantum threat and automatically triggers the freezing mechanism. BitMEX Research states that this proposal serves as a less contentious alternative to the more controversial BIP-361.