ZachXBT questions JuCoin’s $511 million holdings amid user fund access issues
On-chain investigator ZachXBT has raised serious concerns regarding the liquidity and reported reserves of JuCoin, an East Asian cryptocurrency exchange, as users report persistent withdrawal delays.
The investigator’s findings, highlighted on June 7, 2026, suggest that a significant portion of the platform’s claimed $511 million in reserves may not be as liquid as the exchange’s public reporting implies. These developments come amid a wave of complaints from users who have been unable to access their funds for over a week.
Wu Blockchain reported that multiple users have documented withdrawal issues on JuCoin over the past seven days. JuCoin has officially attributed these delays to ongoing platform upgrades and internal restructuring. However, the investigator ZachXBT pointed to a different potential cause, alleging that some of the reported reserves consist of USDC and USDT issued on JuCoin’s own blockchain, JuChain, rather than on established public networks.
This raises immediate questions about whether these stablecoins are bridged or backed by actual dollar-pegged assets on a 1:1 basis. If the assets are purely internal tokens, their value is tied directly to the solvency of JuCoin itself. This situation is particularly sensitive for traders who were already monitoring volatility, such as com/crypto-news/near-protocol-ondo-hyperliquid-price-surge-may-2026-analysis/”>why Near Protocol, Ondo, and Hyperliquid Crypto tokens surged in recent weeks while other platforms struggled with stability.
Historical losses and transparency issues at JuCoin
The current scrutiny follows a series of financial setbacks for the exchange and its associated entities. In April 2026, JuDAO—an organization linked to the exchange—suffered a loss of $225,000 following a smart contract vulnerability. This was a relatively minor blow compared to a major incident in September 2025 where the platform lost a massive volume of assets due to technical errors.
Specifically, 77 million POL tokens were locked indefinitely in September 2025 due to an erroneous proxy contract deployment. Calculations at the time placed the resulting losses at approximately $20 million.
Such technical failures have led to increased skepticism regarding JuCoin’s infrastructure, especially as institutional interest grows in regulated products like those from Grayscale, which recently updated its custodian for its Hyperliquid ETF filing with the SEC.
And it isn’t just technical issues that have analysts concerned. JuCoin’s corporate structure remains notably opaque. Reports indicate that the team members listed publicly by the company do not appear to be the actual controllers of the exchange’s operations or private keys. The exchange has also changed its name multiple times, a move that often complicates regulatory oversight and user accountability.
The role of JuChain in reported reserves
The core of the recent controversy lies in the nature of the “JuChain” network. ZachXBT claims that by utilizing its own blockchain to issue stablecoins, the exchange could be inflating its reserve figures. If the $511 million valuation includes tokens that have no utility or liquidity outside of JuCoin’s own ecosystem, the actual liquid reserves could be significantly lower than reported.
JuCoin has not provided public proof-of-reserves that would independently verify the backing of the JuChain-based stablecoins. Without these audits, the market is left to rely on the company’s internal figures, which ZachXBT has explicitly questioned. This lack of transparency has historically been a precursor to liquidity crises for smaller regional exchanges.
What this means for JuCoin users
For the average user, the primary concern remains the “pending” status of withdrawal requests. While the platform insists the issues are temporary and related to restructuring, the history of similar events in the crypto sector suggests caution. There is currently no definitive evidence that JuCoin is insolvent, but the combination of withdrawal freezes and reserve questions is a classic red flag.
The situation highlights the persistent risks of keeping assets on centralized exchanges that lack clear, audited backing. For those following broader industry trends, it reinforces the argument that finance must move on-chain to prevent the kind of opacity currently seen at JuCoin.
If the exchange is indeed solvent, it will need to clear the withdrawal backlog and provide verifiable proof of its $511 million in assets to restore market confidence.
For now, the investigation into JuCoin’s actual liquidity is ongoing. If the withdrawal delays persist, the platform may face increased pressure from regional regulators in East Asia. The outcome will likely determine whether JuCoin can overcome its latest technical hurdle or if it will join the list of exchanges that failed to survive a crisis of confidence.