Bitget hot list for stolen funds continues to heat up｜ETH withdrawal scheduling is not equal to any chain you can receive｜Before 2742 is confirmed, I will wait
My stance is to first verify the exit path, then consider any buy.
The forum topic #BitgetHackerFailsToMoveStolenFunds shows 4096 views and 171 discussions, which is up compared to the previous round. However, this article does not repeat the “refusing exchange isn’t a freeze” conclusion; instead, it checks the actual boundaries between today’s ETH withdrawal schedule and the receiving network.
Facts are based on the official announcement: Bitget’s September 26 staged restoration schedule lists ETH and Ethereum, BSC, Arbitrum, Base, and Optimism for September 29 at 08:00 UTC, which converts to 16:00 Beijing time today. This time has arrived, but it does not mean I have individually verified every channel has been restored. The announcement’s requirement is to follow the withdrawal availability that the platform directly displays. The security tracking notice also states that the investigation is still ongoing, so you cannot treat the schedule table as proof that the case is closed. [Restoration schedule](https://www.bitget.com/support/articles/12560603896110).
The key point is that the name “ETH” being the same does not mean you are receiving balances from the same chain. ethereum.org explains that transferring ETH between the mainnet and Arbitrum is done via bridges, and it explicitly states that different chains cannot communicate natively and freely. Even if the address looks identical, it still cannot replace the receiving platform’s confirmation that the network and assets are supported. A mainnet deposit address does not automatically mean all other networks listed in the announcement are supported. [Bridge mechanism](https://ethereum.org/bridges/).
Why does this affect trades? My view is that the availability of exit channels affects fund scheduling and exposure to risk, but the restoration of withdrawals itself is not an added ETH buying order. Choosing a network that appears cheaper—if the receiving side doesn’t support it—may save on fees but lead to trouble with automatic crediting. Adding a temporary bridge also increases the uncertainty of contracts, operations, and settlement time. This is execution risk, not an indicator of future coin price.
When organizing assets, I will first verify the coin type, both parties’ networks, and the deposit/credit rules from the official entry point. If a transfer is necessary, I will use a small amount for validation first. I won’t sign unknown permissions or hand over mnemonic phrases. This is a conditional process—I do not claim that funds have been sent out or recovered.
What the market has already shown: At 19:56 Beijing time, Binance ETH/USDT is 2734.92, up 2.554% over the rolling 24 hours, ranging from 2651.68 to 2738.51. The price is near the upper edge of the window, but I have no evidence that the entire rally can be attributed to the withdrawal arrangements. 2742 is a human confirmation threshold, not a price commitment by the platform.
If I were trading on my own: I would not participate, my position would be zero. I would only consider unleveraged spot longs, not shorts. If the hourly close is above 2742, then pull back and hold 2735 to 2742, and—importantly—the trading platform and the exit path I use have already been verified as normal, then I would deploy up to at most 0.3% of total funds. With 2760 halving, I would flatten the remaining position at 2780; a hard stop at 2720 would fully exit. If two consecutive hours close below 2735, I exit as well. If it breaks below 2650 before triggering, I cancel—no chasing the target, and I do not average down to cover losses.
If the platform delays restoration, the receiving chain isn’t supported, the official investigation changes my understanding of the risks, or the bridge fails, then I would overturn the decision to participate. Stop-loss orders carry slippage risk; everything above is a conditional plan only, with no implication of executed trades or profits.
#BitgetHackerFailsToMoveStolenFunds #ETH
The above is only personal market observation and does not constitute investment advice.
My stance is to first verify the exit path, then consider any buy.
The forum topic #BitgetHackerFailsToMoveStolenFunds shows 4096 views and 171 discussions, which is up compared to the previous round. However, this article does not repeat the “refusing exchange isn’t a freeze” conclusion; instead, it checks the actual boundaries between today’s ETH withdrawal schedule and the receiving network.
Facts are based on the official announcement: Bitget’s September 26 staged restoration schedule lists ETH and Ethereum, BSC, Arbitrum, Base, and Optimism for September 29 at 08:00 UTC, which converts to 16:00 Beijing time today. This time has arrived, but it does not mean I have individually verified every channel has been restored. The announcement’s requirement is to follow the withdrawal availability that the platform directly displays. The security tracking notice also states that the investigation is still ongoing, so you cannot treat the schedule table as proof that the case is closed. [Restoration schedule](https://www.bitget.com/support/articles/12560603896110).
The key point is that the name “ETH” being the same does not mean you are receiving balances from the same chain. ethereum.org explains that transferring ETH between the mainnet and Arbitrum is done via bridges, and it explicitly states that different chains cannot communicate natively and freely. Even if the address looks identical, it still cannot replace the receiving platform’s confirmation that the network and assets are supported. A mainnet deposit address does not automatically mean all other networks listed in the announcement are supported. [Bridge mechanism](https://ethereum.org/bridges/).
Why does this affect trades? My view is that the availability of exit channels affects fund scheduling and exposure to risk, but the restoration of withdrawals itself is not an added ETH buying order. Choosing a network that appears cheaper—if the receiving side doesn’t support it—may save on fees but lead to trouble with automatic crediting. Adding a temporary bridge also increases the uncertainty of contracts, operations, and settlement time. This is execution risk, not an indicator of future coin price.
When organizing assets, I will first verify the coin type, both parties’ networks, and the deposit/credit rules from the official entry point. If a transfer is necessary, I will use a small amount for validation first. I won’t sign unknown permissions or hand over mnemonic phrases. This is a conditional process—I do not claim that funds have been sent out or recovered.
What the market has already shown: At 19:56 Beijing time, Binance ETH/USDT is 2734.92, up 2.554% over the rolling 24 hours, ranging from 2651.68 to 2738.51. The price is near the upper edge of the window, but I have no evidence that the entire rally can be attributed to the withdrawal arrangements. 2742 is a human confirmation threshold, not a price commitment by the platform.
If I were trading on my own: I would not participate, my position would be zero. I would only consider unleveraged spot longs, not shorts. If the hourly close is above 2742, then pull back and hold 2735 to 2742, and—importantly—the trading platform and the exit path I use have already been verified as normal, then I would deploy up to at most 0.3% of total funds. With 2760 halving, I would flatten the remaining position at 2780; a hard stop at 2720 would fully exit. If two consecutive hours close below 2735, I exit as well. If it breaks below 2650 before triggering, I cancel—no chasing the target, and I do not average down to cover losses.
If the platform delays restoration, the receiving chain isn’t supported, the official investigation changes my understanding of the risks, or the bridge fails, then I would overturn the decision to participate. Stop-loss orders carry slippage risk; everything above is a conditional plan only, with no implication of executed trades or profits.
#BitgetHackerFailsToMoveStolenFunds #ETH
The above is only personal market observation and does not constitute investment advice.
