A new blockchain investigation has reignited controversy in the crypto community after evidence surfaced connecting one of the largest traders on the decentralized exchange Hyperliquid to a figure already infamous in the industry.
According to findings published by independent researcher Eye, the entity known to control over 100,000 BTC worth of positions on Hyperliquid may be none other than Garrett Jin, the onetime head of the collapsed exchange BitForex. Jin’s name resurfaced after on-chain identifiers and historical transfers pointed to wallets believed to be under his control.
Eye’s research centered around an Ethereum address known as ereignis.eth, which is linked through another ENS registration to garrettjin.eth – an address connected to Jin’s public social media account. The activity tied to those wallets shows multiple high-value interactions with exchanges including Huobi (HTX) and Binance, where the same accounts reportedly initiated a $735 million Bitcoin short shortly before the recent crypto market crash.
Blockchain traces further led to wallets historically associated with BitForex, the exchange Jin ran from 2017 to 2020 before it became mired in accusations of falsified volumes and unregistered operations. The platform later collapsed following a $57 million security breach, with user withdrawals suspended and its team reportedly detained in China.
After BitForex’s downfall, Jin moved on to launch a string of ventures – from WaveLabs VC to TanglePay, IotaBee, and GroupFi – most of which have since faded. His most recent project, XHash.com, an Ethereum staking service aimed at institutions, has also drawn scrutiny from investigators who suspect it could have been used to channel questionable funds. References to XHash were quietly removed from his social profiles following the allegations.
The research has sparked heated debate. Some analysts view the evidence as damning, while others argue the trail may be too neat to be genuine. Quinten François, a prominent crypto analyst, cautioned that the clues could have been intentionally planted to mislead investigators. “No one running operations at that scale would publicly link an ENS name to their real identity – that’s too obvious,” he remarked.
If confirmed, the revelation could expose one of the largest instances of individual market influence on a decentralized derivatives exchange. Yet, as with many blockchain forensics stories, proof beyond circumstantial wallet tracing remains elusive.
Neither Jin nor representatives for Hyperliquid have commented publicly on the matter, and no regulators have confirmed an investigation at this time.
For now, the identity of the Hyperliquid whale remains one of crypto’s most captivating mysteries – one that’s now tangled in the legacy of one of the industry’s most notorious collapses.
