White Whale Revives MEXC Dispute, Alleges Premature Perpetual Futures Listing

Jan 8, 2026, 3:48 a.m. 4 sources negative

Key takeaways:

  • The recurring MEXC dispute underscores systemic CEX risks, potentially driving traders toward DEX alternatives for transparency.
  • Investors should scrutinize exchange token listings for unusual volume patterns that may indicate internal market-making activity.
  • This case may accelerate regulatory scrutiny on CEX operations, impacting exchange token valuations like FTT or BNB.

A long-running dispute between the trader known as White Whale and cryptocurrency exchange MEXC has resurfaced with new allegations, reigniting concerns about transparency and potential conflicts of interest at centralized exchanges. The core of the renewed conflict centers on White Whale's claim that MEXC listed perpetual futures contracts for his project's token before official market-making liquidity was active.

The dispute first entered the public eye in August 2025, when White Whale accused MEXC of freezing over $3 million of his funds and demanding an in-person KYC check in Malaysia—a requirement he alleged was not clearly stated in the exchange's terms. MEXC initially denied the claims, citing internal risk system flags and standard compliance procedures, but later reportedly accepted blame. The case sparked widespread debate about exchange control over user assets.

While the issue faded from daily headlines, it remained a touchpoint in discussions about exchange transparency. The conflict was reignited in early January 2026 following White Whale's announcement of a derivatives listing on rival exchange Bybit. Shortly after, White Whale made new public allegations against MEXC.

He claims that MEXC listed the token's perpetual futures pair before its official market-making support went live. According to White Whale, the pair was not visible via public API access at the time, leading him to allege that the order book could not have been managed by an external market maker. This raises the possibility, he contends, that the exchange may have operated the market internally, reviving the same conflict-of-interest concerns from the 2025 dispute.

MEXC has not publicly commented on these latest claims. The exchange has historically stated it follows internal risk and compliance protocols. This new chapter does not prove wrongdoing but underscores why the original dispute never fully dissipated. For the broader market, the incident highlights persistent questions about whether centralized exchanges adequately separate their platform operations from any internal trading activity.

Disclaimer

The content on this website is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute investment advice, an offer, or professional consultation. Crypto assets are high-risk and volatile — you may lose all funds. Some materials may include summaries and links to third-party sources; we are not responsible for their content or accuracy. Any decisions you make are at your own risk. Coinalertnews recommends independently verifying information and consulting with a professional before making any financial decisions based on this content.