Alex @AlexXBT - Twitter Profile

Alex

@AlexXBT

about 5 hours ago

@chimpfone Not sure what u mean bro can u fill this instead: ticker: entry: TP: SL: leverage:

0

69

AlexXBT retweeted

ryandcrypto

@ryandcrypto

16 days ago

jeff turned down 100m to build the house of all finance and you're bearish? see you at $100 hyperliquid

12

174

22

4

9K

AlexXBT retweeted

The White Whale

@WhiteWhaleLabs

7 months ago

MEXC Has Violated the Law - TWW Formal Response on “Arbitration” and Threats of Doxxing @MEXC_Official @cecilia_hsueh I’m issuing a formal objection to MEXC’s claim of a “third-party arbitration process” and their associated threat to publicly disclose (“doxx”) my identity. Your own Terms of Service (Section 48) state that “the arbitration shall be subject to the HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules in force when the Notice of Arbitration is submitted.” No such Notice of Arbitration has ever been delivered to me. I learned of this so-called process only through your press release - not through the procedures required under HKIAC. That alone makes any claimed arbitration invalid. The HKIAC Rules require impartiality and formal notice of the tribunal’s composition. I have received neither. Until I do, I reserve full rights to challenge any arbitrator and the legitimacy of this process in its entirety. You have also already breached HKIAC Article 45.1, which states: “No party may publish, disclose or communicate any information relating to the arbitration.” By publicly announcing alleged arbitration you’ve violated the confidentiality that governs your own chosen forum. Your Privacy Policy further promises: “We never disclose any personal information about our customers to non-affiliated third parties, except as described below.” Threatening to doxx me violates both HKIAC confidentiality and your own privacy commitments. Even if you argue arbitration hasn’t formally begun, that only worsens your position - in that case, your press release misrepresents a legal process that does not yet exist. I now demand that you immediately provide a copy of any Notice of Arbitration you claim to have filed or intend to file, including the date, the arbitral institution, the seat, the names of any arbitrator, and the claims being made. I further demand that you confirm whether you intend to disclose my identity or personal information, and on what legal basis. All public or private threats of disclosure must cease immediately. Proceed only under full HKIAC compliance - or withdraw this fabricated “arbitration” entirely. I reserve all rights to challenge this process, including any attempt to shape public narrative or disclose private data. If you continue acting outside your own Terms and the HKIAC Rules, I will treat it as bad-faith conduct and pursue every available remedy, including injunctive relief and regulatory complaint. I did not agree to “arbitration by press release.” Follow your own contract, follow your own rules, and stop the coercive theater. MEXC’s public statement goes even further off the rails by characterizing my assets as “illicit profits.” That language is both procedurally improper and legally reckless. Under Article 45.1 of the HKIAC Administered Arbitration Rules, no party may “publish, disclose or communicate any information relating to the arbitration.” Publicly asserting that a counterparty’s funds are illicit before any tribunal has been constituted is a direct violation of that rule. It prejudges the outcome, poisons the process, and undermines the very impartiality HKIAC is meant to protect. It is also defamatory under Hong Kong law. The Defamation Ordinance (Cap. 21) defines libel as a published statement that damages a person’s reputation by imputing criminal or dishonest conduct. By publicly labeling my transactions “illicit,” MEXC has published an accusation of criminality without adjudicated fact, while simultaneously disclosing my financial data. This constitutes both defamation and breach of contractual confidentiality. Any legitimate dispute resolution body would treat such conduct as bad faith and grounds for sanction. TLDR: If you're going to bring it, bring it. But you're already in violation of the very process you seek to invoke. You'll have a counter-claim from me faster than you can say "stolen funds". -TWW https://t.co/xsS4uKvfOl

229

2K

208

196

310K