The denial itself is not new. Xia made the comments on August 8, after BitMart had announced plans to wind down exchange operations and users were publicly raising concerns about access to their assets. Recent reporting has brought the statement back into focus as BitMart moves deeper into a restructuring process without yet resolving those questions.
Xia said BitMart had not “run away” and would not do so, while describing the company as continuing an asset inventory, consolidating assets and maintaining its systems. He also urged users to be cautious about claims attributed to current and former employees, leaked screenshots and other unofficial material.
There is currently no verified evidence establishing that Xia personally disappeared with or misappropriated customer assets. The allegations remain unproven.
But his August statement also did not include wallet balances, liabilities, a proof-of-reserves report or a schedule showing when customers would regain unrestricted access to their funds.
That gap has become harder to ignore because BitMart itself had already acknowledged concerns around asset transparency months earlier. In a May 23 statement, the exchange said it was preparing a proof-of-reserves disclosure after users raised questions about account restrictions and withdrawals. It said the report would be published at an “appropriate time.”
No such verified reserve figures were included in BitMart’s September 9 restructuring update. Instead, the company said information covering its assets, financial position and withdrawal arrangements must first be verified by an independent financial adviser.
The uncertainty comes at a difficult moment for centralized exchanges. CoinEx recently became another centralized exchange to begin a full wind-down, but it published specific trading and withdrawal deadlines and said customer assets were more than 100% reserved.
BitMart’s situation is much less defined.
BitMart Has Shifted From Closure Toward a Possible Restructuring
BitMart originally announced on July 26 that it would begin an orderly cessation of its trading-platform operations.
The original plan stopped new registrations and deposits, placed futures into reduce-only mode and called for spot and futures trading to end on August 26. Full platform operations were originally scheduled to cease on January 31, 2027.
The exchange said withdrawals would remain available during the process, although customer complaints about delayed or restricted access had already begun appearing before the shutdown announcement.
Those complaints are important because having a balance displayed inside an exchange account is not the same as being able to move the underlying asset. Dave Finances recently documented how withdrawal access can become operationally fragile during an exchange wind-down, even when a platform says withdrawals remain broadly available.
BitMart subsequently changed course.
On August 21, the company said it was considering a restructuring plan as an alternative to a complete closure. The proposal could involve a phased resumption of certain operations alongside distributions to creditors, subject to legal, financial, operational and regulatory review.
BitMart appointed White & Case as restructuring counsel to help evaluate those options.
The company then brought in Alvarez & Marsal on September 9 as an external financial adviser. A&M was tasked with assessing BitMart’s financial position, stakeholder issues and arrangements for orderly withdrawals, as well as evaluating whether operations could resume or another solution should be pursued.
That announcement contained one unusually direct acknowledgment from BitMart: the company said withdrawal restrictions imposed during the previous period had caused concern among users.
The exchange also said an independent third party would be appointed to oversee operations and the safekeeping of assets.
On September 16, BitMart launched a dedicated user-engagement portal where customers can submit questions and concerns about withdrawals, the restructuring process and the company’s future direction.
As of September 21, that remains the latest major restructuring announcement listed in BitMart’s official support center.
There is still no published timetable showing when restricted users will receive funds, no comprehensive reserves-and-liabilities statement and no final restructuring plan.
The distinction matters because prolonged restrictions are increasingly becoming an industry issue separate from outright exchange insolvency. Customers at other major platforms have reported extended account restrictions lasting more than 100 days, while Coinbase users have described withdrawal locks combined with repeated identity-verification problems.
Those cases do not establish anything about BitMart’s financial condition. They do demonstrate why the mechanics of access matter independently from the balance an exchange says a customer owns.
Regulatory protection is another complication.
On August 6, the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority issued a public notice stating that BitMart and several related entities had never been registered, licensed or otherwise authorized by CIMA to conduct virtual-asset services from the Cayman Islands. The regulator said the notice followed multiple complaints involving references to BitMart’s regulatory status.
That does not establish that customer funds are missing. It does mean users cannot assume Cayman virtual-asset supervision provides a regulatory backstop for the current restructuring.
The Real Test Is Whether BitMart Can Replace Assurances With Numbers
There is an important difference between an allegation and evidence.
Right now, there is no public evidence proving the most serious accusation circulating around BitMart: that Sheldon Xia personally took customer money and disappeared.
That claim should remain labeled exactly what it is — unverified.
But dismissing the accusation does not resolve the underlying problem.
The real issue is whether BitMart can demonstrate that the assets necessary to meet customer claims actually exist, where they are held and how they will be distributed.
This is where the phrase “asset inventory” becomes important.
If an exchange has to consolidate wallets, reconcile customer liabilities and bring in restructuring advisers before publishing its financial position, investors should pay attention to how complicated that reconciliation turns out to be. A simple proof that wallets contain assets is not enough if outsiders cannot compare those assets with what the platform owes customers.
That is why proof of reserves became so important after previous centralized-exchange failures. It is also why custody structure increasingly matters. Recent incidents involving custodial accounts have reinforced that users ultimately depend on the operator whenever the company controls the keys and the withdrawal process.
By contrast, self-custodial blockchain infrastructure shifts that particular risk away from a centralized intermediary because users retain direct control of their assets.
BitMart now has professional advisers that should be capable of producing something much stronger than management assurances.
White & Case can help structure the legal process. Alvarez & Marsal can assess assets, liabilities and available restructuring options. An independent asset-safekeeping supervisor, if appointed as promised, could add another layer of oversight.
Those appointments are meaningful because they create a route toward independent verification.
They are not verification themselves.
The next BitMart update therefore needs numbers more than reassurance.
Users need to know total customer liabilities, liquid assets available for distribution, assets that may be difficult to realize, the treatment of different creditor groups and a realistic withdrawal schedule. If there is a shortfall, the size of that shortfall matters. If there is no shortfall, independently verified figures would go a long way toward proving it.
The restructuring question comes after that.
A phased reopening could preserve more value than simply shutting the platform if the business remains viable. But resuming trading before customers understand the status of existing funds would create a very different risk calculation.
For now, Xia’s denial removes nothing from the list of questions investors and customers need answered.
The allegation that he fled with the money remains unverified.
So does the amount of money actually available to repay everyone.
Until BitMart publishes a verified balance sheet and withdrawal plan, that second uncertainty is the one that matters most.
Johan Shamshad is a financial markets writer at Dave Finances covering cryptocurrencies, trading platforms, brokers, fintech, financial regulation, and developments across global markets. He previously worked at Gulf News, adding newsroom experience to his coverage of fast-moving financial and digital-asset markets.
His work focuses on identifying market-moving events, company developments, regulatory changes, product launches, and shifts in trading and financial infrastructure.
Johan contributes news and analysis designed to help readers understand not only what happened, but why a development matters and how it may affect the wider financial landscape.