Update Aug. 25, 1:25 p.m. UTC: This article has been updated to include a response from a MEXC spokesperson.

A cryptocurrency trader launched a $2 million social media pressure campaign against MEXC, claiming that the digital asset exchange had frozen more than $3 million worth of his personal funds for no clear reason.

In July 2025, centralized cryptocurrency exchange (CEX) MEXC allegedly froze $3.1 million worth of personal funds without any terms of service violations, according to pseudonymous crypto trader the White Whale.

In response, the trader is launching a $2 million social media pressure campaign against MEXC, claiming that the exchange had requested a one-year review period before unfreezing the user’s funds.

“I’m Putting a $2M Bounty Up For Grabs (half can be claimed by YOU),” wrote the White Whale in a Sunday X post, adding:

“What kind of review takes 12 months - without a single update, document, or charge?”

Numerous other traders are affected by similar account freezes, the trader said, adding that the industry’s most successful participants are “punished for winning.”

Source: the White Whale

Related: US retirement plans could fuel Bitcoin rally to $200K despite downturn: Finance Redefined

In response to his account suspension, the trader launched a social media campaign, requesting that users mint a free non-fungible token (NFT) on the Base network, tag MEXC or its chief operating officer’s X account with the “#FreeTheWhiteWhale” tag, and change their profile pictures to the above image.

For completing these tasks, $1 million of the bounty will be equally divided among the first 20,000 NFT holders, awarding each holder $50 USDC (USDC), provided that MEXC releases the frozen funds.

Another $1 million worth of USDC will be allocated to “verified, carefully vetted charities,” with the trader promising onchain receipts after the donations.

Source: The White Whale

The trader claimed to have previously completed the exchange’s Know Your Customer (KYC) verification process.

“Account restrictions and freezes are imposed strictly because they triggered our risk control rules, not due to profitability,” a spokesperson for MEXC told Cointelegraph, adding that the exchange has launched renewed risk control measures.

“During our review, we identified that certain user funds carried potential risks. As a result, we imposed temporary withdrawal restrictions and required those users to complete advanced KYC verification,” added the spokesperson.

As for the 12-month review period, this mechanism applies “exclusively to accounts involved in coordinated violations, high-risk accounts, or compliance-related risks, and does not affect all users subject to risk control measures.”

Related: Andrew Tate shorts Kanye West’s YZY, racks up $700K losses on Hyperliquid

“White whale” claims to surpass MEXC market makers before $3 million freeze

The trader claimed that his funds were frozen due to being more profitable than the exchange’s crypto market makers, firms or individuals who provide liquidity by placing consistent buy and sell orders to ensure smooth trading.

“My only conceivable offense? I was too profitable,” wrote the pseudonymous trader, adding:

“I consistently beat their external market makers - the firms they quietly partner with to be the counterparty to trades (this is public record).”

Crypto market makers are among the most misunderstood participants of the digital asset market, often blamed by traders for deliberately manipulating cryptocurrency prices, despite a lack of evidence.

Still, research from Acheron Trading suggested that 78.5% of new crypto launches between April and June 2024 were conducted in a manner that disrupted fair price discovery, detrimentally affecting both end-users and the projects themselves.

Breakdown of premarket listing approaches. Source: Acheron Trading

Moreover, 69.9% of primary token listings were “Parasitic,” meaning that market makers were exploiting premarket conditions by creating artificial scarcity and sentiment around the token.

Magazine: Solana Seeker review: Is the $500 crypto phone worth it?