I am asking the Bitcointalk community to independently review my dispute with Bitget.

I am a retail user from Brazil. My dispute involves TUTUSDT/BICOUSDT and a compensation determination of 12,712.84 USDT, which Bitget has declared “final.”

My concern is not simply that I disagree with the amount. I have repeatedly asked for the underlying records and methodology necessary to independently reproduce their calculation.

Aug. 19: I formally rejected the proposed settlement and requested preservation of orders, fills, positions, SYS/liquidation logs, mark/index prices, margin/risk records and compensation calculations.

Aug. 20: I specifically asked Bitget:

What is the official channel for submitting a Notice of Claim?
Who handles the dispute after Support declares its decision “final”?
Where are the records needed to independently reproduce the compensation calculation?

Aug. 22: Bitget again told me the compensation decision was “final” and said I could contact them if I wanted further clarification regarding the calculation.

But that clarification and the underlying records were exactly what I had already requested.

I have preserved my support communications, API/trading records, orders and fills. I am willing to provide redacted evidence here for independent examination.

I am not asking this community to automatically take my side.

I am asking experienced members to audit my evidence.

If my reconstruction is wrong, please show me where.

If it is correct, I want to understand why I cannot reproduce Bitget's 12,712.84 USDT determination from the available records.

My questions:

1. What records should I request from Bitget?

2. How should the affected cross-margin positions and SYS-classified fills be reconstructed?

3. What evidence should I publish here so experienced members can independently reproduce the calculation?

This dispute has already lasted more than two weeks and involves a substantial part of my savings. I want a technical, evidence-based review.

I will provide additional redacted evidence requested by members in this thread.

Quote from: luciomaciel on August 23, 2026, 03:00:22 PM

My dispute involves TUTUSDT/BICOUSDT and a compensation determination of 12,712.84 USDT, which Bitget has declared “final.”

My concern is not simply that I disagree with the amount. I have repeatedly asked for the underlying records and methodology necessary to independently reproduce their calculation.

I think you should have given more information about what exactly happened, not just your final discussion with Bitget.
What kind of compensation are we talking about here? Based on what?

You haven't given us the backstory. What happened? When did it happen, and what exactly are they compensating for?
I don't think any member can help you regarding the internal methodology Bitget used for the calculations. Maybe try engaging their legal team regarding the dispute. You might need a lawyer to guide you through this if you have some legal fees to spend.

Quote from: examplens on August 23, 2026, 08:55:22 PM

Quote from: luciomaciel on August 23, 2026, 03:00:22 PM

My dispute involves TUTUSDT/BICOUSDT and a compensation determination of 12,712.84 USDT, which Bitget has declared “final.”

My concern is not simply that I disagree with the amount. I have repeatedly asked for the underlying records and methodology necessary to independently reproduce their calculation.

I think you should have given more information about what exactly happened, not just your final discussion with Bitget.
What kind of compensation are we talking about here? Based on what?

Thanks. That's a fair point. I realize that my original post focused too much on the final compensation discussion without first explaining the underlying incident.

The compensation relates to futures trading activity on my Bitget account involving TUTUSDT/BICOUSDT under cross margin.

I have preserved the relevant API/trading records, orders, fills, screenshots and communications with Bitget. My goal is to reconstruct what actually happened from those records and allow experienced members here to examine the evidence independently.

I will provide the backstory chronologically: the positions before the incident, what happened, the relevant orders and fills, the cross-margin impact, what Bitget considered affected activity, and how the compensation process eventually resulted in the 12,712.84 USDT figure.

I am not asking anyone to assume my interpretation is correct. If my reconstruction or calculations are wrong, I want that identified as well.

So I agree with your criticism. Before asking whether the compensation amount is correct, I need to show exactly what happened and what the compensation was intended to cover. I will provide that evidence and chronology next.

Quote from: logfiles on August 23, 2026, 10:32:53 PM

You haven't given us the backstory. What happened? When did it happen, and what exactly are they compensating for?
I don't think any member can help you regarding the internal methodology Bitget used for the calculations. Maybe try engaging their legal team regarding the dispute. You might need a lawyer to guide you through this if you have some legal fees to spend.

Thank you. You're right that I need to provide the backstory before anyone can properly evaluate the dispute.

The incident occurred in August 2026 and involved futures activity in TUTUSDT/BICOUSDT under cross margin on Bitget.

Bitget ultimately determined compensation of 12,712.84 USDT. My dispute is not simply that I disagree with that amount. I am trying to determine whether the compensation can actually be reproduced from the underlying trading records and methodology.

Regarding your suggestion to contact their legal team: this is also part of the problem I am currently trying to resolve.

I have repeatedly asked for a clear escalation path after Support declared the compensation decision “final,” including the official procedure for submitting a formal Notice of Claim. So far, I have been redirected between support channels and responses without obtaining the complete underlying records and calculation necessary for me to independently reproduce the determination.

I do not want anyone here to simply accept my description of what happened. I have preserved API/trading records, orders, fills, screenshots and communications, and I am organizing them for independent review.

I have also created a public case archive where I am organizing the evidence and timeline:

mybitgetcase.com

The purpose of the site is to preserve and organize the documentation, not to ask readers to automatically take my side.

I will also bring the relevant evidence directly into this BitcoinTalk thread so members do not have to rely on an external website.

My next post here will explain the incident chronologically: what happened, the positions involved, the relevant orders/fills, the cross-margin impact, Bitget's responses, the compensation calculation provided to me, and what remains unexplained.

If my reconstruction is wrong, I want someone to show me where. If it is correct, then I want to understand why the available records do not reproduce Bitget's determination.

Quote from: luciomaciel on August 23, 2026, 03:00:22 PM

I am asking the Bitcointalk community to independently review my dispute with Bitget.

I am a retail user from Brazil. My dispute involves TUTUSDT/BICOUSDT and a compensation determination of 12,712.84 USDT, which Bitget has declared “final.”

My concern is not simply that I disagree with the amount. I have repeatedly asked for the underlying records and methodology necessary to independently reproduce their calculation.

Aug. 19: I formally rejected the proposed settlement and requested preservation of orders, fills, positions, SYS/liquidation logs, mark/index prices, margin/risk records and compensation calculations.

Aug. 20: I specifically asked Bitget:

What is the official channel for submitting a Notice of Claim?
Who handles the dispute after Support declares its decision “final”?
Where are the records needed to independently reproduce the compensation calculation?

Aug. 22: Bitget again told me the compensation decision was “final” and said I could contact them if I wanted further clarification regarding the calculation.

But that clarification and the underlying records were exactly what I had already requested.

I have preserved my support communications, API/trading records, orders and fills. I am willing to provide redacted evidence here for independent examination.

I am not asking this community to automatically take my side.

I am asking experienced members to audit my evidence.

If my reconstruction is wrong, please show me where.

If it is correct, I want to understand why I cannot reproduce Bitget's 12,712.84 USDT determination from the available records.

My questions:

1. What records should I request from Bitget?

2. How should the affected cross-margin positions and SYS-classified fills be reconstructed?

3. What evidence should I publish here so experienced members can independently reproduce the calculation?

This dispute has already lasted more than two weeks and involves a substantial part of my savings. I want a technical, evidence-based review.

I will provide additional redacted evidence requested by members in this thread.

UPDATE — EVIDENCE #1: RAW BITGET API DATA / SYS EVENTS

Thank you for the questions. I agree that I need to provide the underlying evidence, not only describe the dispute.

I have now organized the first technical evidence package from data collected through Bitget's API.

For transparency, I am separating:

1. RAW API FACTS — information returned by Bitget's API
2. CALCULATIONS — calculations performed from those records
3. HYPOTHESES — interpretations that still need independent verification

I am NOT presenting my calculations as proven facts. I am asking experienced members to audit them.

----------------------------------------
1. WHAT THE API DATA SHOWS
----------------------------------------

The reconstructed records contain SYS-classified events associated with the affected accounts.

The first SYS event identified in the SUB account occurred at:

2026-08-09 07:10:22.977 UTC

For the MAIN account, SYS events identified in the dataset occur between:

2026-08-09 07:10:42.520 UTC
and
2026-08-09 07:10:51.300 UTC

For the ELITE account, a SYS event appears at:

2026-08-09 07:10:42.503 UTC

These timestamps come from the API-derived records in my evidence package.

One point I would particularly like experienced members to examine:

My reconstruction notes the first SUB SYS event at 07:10:22.977 UTC, while the TUT incident window referenced in the material I received/compiled begins at approximately 07:10:37 UTC.

I do NOT want to draw a conclusion from this timestamp difference without independent review.

I want to understand what the SYS classification represents in this context and whether these events can be reliably connected to the incident and subsequent compensation calculation.

----------------------------------------
2. REALIZED PNL ASSOCIATED WITH SYS RECORDS
----------------------------------------

When I aggregate the realized PnL fields associated with the SYS-classified records in the dataset, my reconstruction produces:

MAIN:
-30,107.61857092 USDT

SUB:
-12,838.32027004 USDT

ELITE:
-1,994.72 USDT

LINKED_KEY2:
-1,082.30625 USDT

IMPORTANT:

I am NOT claiming that the sum of these numbers automatically equals the loss Bitget is responsible for.

These are calculations derived from the SYS-classified records.

One of the reasons I am posting here is precisely to determine what these SYS records mean economically and how they should be interpreted.

----------------------------------------
3. BITGET'S COMPENSATION
----------------------------------------

Bitget ultimately determined compensation of:

12,712.84 USDT

Bitget has told me that this compensation amount was calculated according to its compensation plan/methodology and that the decision is final.

My problem is that I have not yet been able to independently reproduce that 12,712.84 USDT figure from the records available to me.

That does NOT necessarily mean Bitget's calculation is wrong.

It means I need to understand what data or methodology is missing.

----------------------------------------
4. IMPORTANT DATA I DO NOT HAVE
----------------------------------------

My evidence review identified information that does not appear to be reproducible from the user-accessible API records alone, including:

- historical equity/margin snapshots at the critical moment
- internal liquidation/ADL engine logs
- Bitget's internal compensation worksheet/calculation
- sufficiently granular historical mark/index price data for every relevant second

This distinction is important.

I do not want to claim that public/user API records prove something that they cannot prove.

Instead, I want to determine what CAN be reconstructed from the API and what requires internal exchange records.

----------------------------------------
5. QUESTIONS FOR TECHNICAL REVIEWERS
----------------------------------------

I would appreciate help from members experienced with futures exchange APIs, liquidation systems and cross-margin accounting.

Specifically:

1. What does a SYS-classified order/fill normally represent in this type of Bitget futures record?

2. Is summing realized PnL from SYS records a meaningful way to analyze the economic effect, or would that be methodologically incorrect?

3. How should the affected cross-margin positions be reconstructed from orders, fills and position history?

4. What significance, if any, should be assigned to the first SUB SYS event appearing at 07:10:22.977 UTC?

5. What additional data would be required to independently reproduce a compensation calculation?

6. Is it possible to validate or reject the 12,712.84 USDT compensation figure using only user-accessible API records?

----------------------------------------
6. EVIDENCE INTEGRITY
----------------------------------------

The evidence package contains the underlying API-derived JSON records, reconstructed tables and SHA-256 hashes so that the data used in the analysis can be tracked.

I also prepared a PUBLIC/REDACTED version specifically for independent review.

I will not publish API keys, secrets, authentication headers or unredacted account identifiers.

I can post the relevant redacted records here in smaller groups so members can examine them without downloading a huge archive.

----------------------------------------
NEXT EVIDENCE
----------------------------------------

If members agree, my next post will be:

EVIDENCE #2 — SYS EVENT TABLE

I will publish the relevant redacted SYS records with:

- UTC timestamp
- account label
- symbol
- side
- size
- execution/order price
- realized PnL
- relevant API fields

After that:

EVIDENCE #3 — position/order/fill reconstruction

Then:

EVIDENCE #4 — comparison between the reconstructed records and Bitget's 12,712.84 USDT compensation calculation.

My goal is simple:

If my reconstruction is wrong, I want someone to show me exactly where it is wrong.

If the available API data is insufficient to reproduce Bitget's calculation, I want to identify exactly which missing records are required.

I welcome criticism of the methodology and calculations.

I think your only recourse if legal at this point

Does not look like support will provide what you are asking for and it will just lead to more wasted time and frustration on your end.

Your case also might be more on the technical side so i will refrain from giving any other input than above

These guys have many scam accusations against them.

August 2026: 13 scam accusations

July 2026: 11 scam accusations

June 2026: 14 scam accusations

May 2026: 14 scam accusations

April 2026: 7 scam accusations

March 2026: 9 scam accusations

source: https://www.trustpilot.com/review/bitget.com

As you can see, they have had scam accusations every month. This shows that they don't provide good service and are used to people complaining about their services, and they do nothing to change that. Probably because they believe they continued to have clients even with some scam accusations against them, and also believe that people won't spend money paying lawyers to take them to court, because those are high costs that can even exceed the amount they stole from the person. According to this website "contactout.com", their physical address is located in Singapore.

Quote from: https://contactout.com/company/Bitget-Group-38572/headquarters

60 PAYA LEBAR ROAD#08-55 PAYA LEBAR SQUARE, Singapore, Singapore, 409051, SG

source: https://contactout.com/company/Bitget-Group-38572/headquarters

You would have to travel to Singapore to hire a local lawyer to sue them, knowing that they may not even have a physical office in Singapore, or even if they did, they may have strong connections with authorities in that country, and you might not succeed in your case. Just look at who owns this exchange:

https://www.bitget.com/promotion/aboutus

What I mean by this is that the chances of your problem being solved are extremely small.

Quote from: Slow death on Today at 09:26:55 AM

What I mean by this is that the chances of your problem being solved are extremely small.

As far as I can see, he doesn't have a case, he just expresses doubts about their algorithm and the way they calculated something.
We can still only guess about some important inputs here, such as why exactly $12,712.84? whose money it is and how much he "expected" compensation?

Quote from: luciomaciel on Today at 02:17:45 AM

Quote from: luciomaciel on August 23, 2026, 03:00:22 PM

I am asking the Bitcointalk community to independently review my dispute with Bitget.

I am a retail user from Brazil. My dispute involves TUTUSDT/BICOUSDT and a compensation determination of 12,712.84 USDT, which Bitget has declared “final.”

My concern is not simply that I disagree with the amount. I have repeatedly asked for the underlying records and methodology necessary to independently reproduce their calculation.

Aug. 19: I formally rejected the proposed settlement and requested preservation of orders, fills, positions, SYS/liquidation logs, mark/index prices, margin/risk records and compensation calculations.

Aug. 20: I specifically asked Bitget:

What is the official channel for submitting a Notice of Claim?
Who handles the dispute after Support declares its decision “final”?
Where are the records needed to independently reproduce the compensation calculation?

Aug. 22: Bitget again told me the compensation decision was “final” and said I could contact them if I wanted further clarification regarding the calculation.

But that clarification and the underlying records were exactly what I had already requested.

I have preserved my support communications, API/trading records, orders and fills. I am willing to provide redacted evidence here for independent examination.

I am not asking this community to automatically take my side.

I am asking experienced members to audit my evidence.

If my reconstruction is wrong, please show me where.

If it is correct, I want to understand why I cannot reproduce Bitget's 12,712.84 USDT determination from the available records.

My questions:

1. What records should I request from Bitget?

2. How should the affected cross-margin positions and SYS-classified fills be reconstructed?

3. What evidence should I publish here so experienced members can independently reproduce the calculation?

This dispute has already lasted more than two weeks and involves a substantial part of my savings. I want a technical, evidence-based review.

I will provide additional redacted evidence requested by members in this thread.

UPDATE — EVIDENCE #1: RAW BITGET API DATA / SYS EVENTS

Thank you for the questions. I agree that I need to provide the underlying evidence, not only describe the dispute.

I have now organized the first technical evidence package from data collected through Bitget's API.

For transparency, I am separating:

1. RAW API FACTS — information returned by Bitget's API
2. CALCULATIONS — calculations performed from those records
3. HYPOTHESES — interpretations that still need independent verification

I am NOT presenting my calculations as proven facts. I am asking experienced members to audit them.

----------------------------------------
1. WHAT THE API DATA SHOWS
----------------------------------------

The reconstructed records contain SYS-classified events associated with the affected accounts.

The first SYS event identified in the SUB account occurred at:

2026-08-09 07:10:22.977 UTC

For the MAIN account, SYS events identified in the dataset occur between:

2026-08-09 07:10:42.520 UTC
and
2026-08-09 07:10:51.300 UTC

For the ELITE account, a SYS event appears at:

2026-08-09 07:10:42.503 UTC

These timestamps come from the API-derived records in my evidence package.

One point I would particularly like experienced members to examine:

My reconstruction notes the first SUB SYS event at 07:10:22.977 UTC, while the TUT incident window referenced in the material I received/compiled begins at approximately 07:10:37 UTC.

I do NOT want to draw a conclusion from this timestamp difference without independent review.

I want to understand what the SYS classification represents in this context and whether these events can be reliably connected to the incident and subsequent compensation calculation.

----------------------------------------
2. REALIZED PNL ASSOCIATED WITH SYS RECORDS
----------------------------------------

When I aggregate the realized PnL fields associated with the SYS-classified records in the dataset, my reconstruction produces:

MAIN:
-30,107.61857092 USDT

SUB:
-12,838.32027004 USDT

ELITE:
-1,994.72 USDT

LINKED_KEY2:
-1,082.30625 USDT

IMPORTANT:

I am NOT claiming that the sum of these numbers automatically equals the loss Bitget is responsible for.

These are calculations derived from the SYS-classified records.

One of the reasons I am posting here is precisely to determine what these SYS records mean economically and how they should be interpreted.

----------------------------------------
3. BITGET'S COMPENSATION
----------------------------------------

Bitget ultimately determined compensation of:

12,712.84 USDT

Bitget has told me that this compensation amount was calculated according to its compensation plan/methodology and that the decision is final.

My problem is that I have not yet been able to independently reproduce that 12,712.84 USDT figure from the records available to me.

That does NOT necessarily mean Bitget's calculation is wrong.

It means I need to understand what data or methodology is missing.

----------------------------------------
4. IMPORTANT DATA I DO NOT HAVE
----------------------------------------

My evidence review identified information that does not appear to be reproducible from the user-accessible API records alone, including:

- historical equity/margin snapshots at the critical moment
- internal liquidation/ADL engine logs
- Bitget's internal compensation worksheet/calculation
- sufficiently granular historical mark/index price data for every relevant second

This distinction is important.

I do not want to claim that public/user API records prove something that they cannot prove.

Instead, I want to determine what CAN be reconstructed from the API and what requires internal exchange records.

----------------------------------------
5. QUESTIONS FOR TECHNICAL REVIEWERS
----------------------------------------

I would appreciate help from members experienced with futures exchange APIs, liquidation systems and cross-margin accounting.

Specifically:

1. What does a SYS-classified order/fill normally represent in this type of Bitget futures record?

2. Is summing realized PnL from SYS records a meaningful way to analyze the economic effect, or would that be methodologically incorrect?

3. How should the affected cross-margin positions be reconstructed from orders, fills and position history?

4. What significance, if any, should be assigned to the first SUB SYS event appearing at 07:10:22.977 UTC?

5. What additional data would be required to independently reproduce a compensation calculation?

6. Is it possible to validate or reject the 12,712.84 USDT compensation figure using only user-accessible API records?

----------------------------------------
6. EVIDENCE INTEGRITY
----------------------------------------

The evidence package contains the underlying API-derived JSON records, reconstructed tables and SHA-256 hashes so that the data used in the analysis can be tracked.

I also prepared a PUBLIC/REDACTED version specifically for independent review.

I will not publish API keys, secrets, authentication headers or unredacted account identifiers.

I can post the relevant redacted records here in smaller groups so members can examine them without downloading a huge archive.

----------------------------------------
NEXT EVIDENCE
----------------------------------------

If members agree, my next post will be:

EVIDENCE #2 — SYS EVENT TABLE

I will publish the relevant redacted SYS records with:

- UTC timestamp
- account label
- symbol
- side
- size
- execution/order price
- realized PnL
- relevant API fields

After that:

EVIDENCE #3 — position/order/fill reconstruction

Then:

EVIDENCE #4 — comparison between the reconstructed records and Bitget's 12,712.84 USDT compensation calculation.

My goal is simple:

If my reconstruction is wrong, I want someone to show me exactly where it is wrong.

If the available API data is insufficient to reproduce Bitget's calculation, I want to identify exactly which missing records are required.

I welcome criticism of the methodology and calculations.

UPDATE #2 — WHAT EXACTLY IS MY CLAIM, AND WHY IS 12,712.84 USDT IN DISPUTE?

Thank you for the recent comments.

One member raised an important criticism:

"As far as I can see, he doesn't have a case, he just expresses doubts about their algorithm and the way they calculated something. We can still only guess about some important inputs here, such as why exactly $12,712.84? whose money it is and how much he 'expected' compensation?"

I think this is a fair criticism.

So before posting EVIDENCE #2, I want to make the dispute itself much clearer.

----------------------------------------
1. THIS IS AN ACTIVE DISPUTE
----------------------------------------

This is not a historical complaint that has already been resolved.

I have been trying to resolve this matter with Bitget for more than 15 days.

The dispute concerns the TUTUSDT/BICOUSDT activity surrounding the August 9 incident and the subsequent compensation determination made by Bitget.

Bitget determined compensation of:

12,712.84 USDT

They subsequently informed me that their compensation decision and amount were "final."

I have continued requesting the records and methodology necessary to understand and independently verify that calculation.

----------------------------------------
2. WHAT AM I ACTUALLY CLAIMING?
----------------------------------------

I want to be very precise here.

I am NOT saying:

"Bitget owes me X because I added all negative PnL numbers together."

That would be an unsupported conclusion.

What I am saying is:

The user-accessible Bitget API records contain SYS-classified activity and realized PnL associated with the affected accounts.

My reconstruction of those SYS records currently produces:

MAIN:
-30,107.61857092 USDT

SUB:
-12,838.32027004 USDT

ELITE:
-1,994.72 USDT

LINKED_KEY2:
-1,082.30625 USDT

These figures are NOT my compensation demand.

They are evidence inputs that require interpretation.

This distinction is extremely important.

----------------------------------------
3. THEN HOW MUCH DO I CLAIM BITGET OWES ME?
----------------------------------------

At this stage, I do not want to invent a number simply to make the claim look stronger.

The purpose of this technical reconstruction is to determine the defensible economic loss attributable to the incident.

That requires separating:

A) normal trading losses

B) SYS/liquidation-related realized PnL

C) losses potentially associated with the TUT incident

D) BICO-related effects

E) cross-margin interactions between positions

F) amounts already compensated by Bitget

G) any losses that cannot legitimately be attributed to the incident

Only after those components are reconstructed can a technically defensible compensation figure be calculated.

That is precisely why the underlying records matter.

----------------------------------------
4. WHY DO I DISPUTE 12,712.84 USDT?
----------------------------------------

Because I cannot reproduce it.

If Bitget's 12,712.84 USDT calculation is correct, there should be some combination of:

- affected positions
- eligible loss criteria
- timestamps
- prices
- position sizes
- margin/equity state
- exclusions
- compensation rules

that mathematically produces:

12,712.84 USDT.

I have repeatedly asked for enough information to understand that calculation.

So far, using the records available to me, I have not been able to reproduce it.

This does NOT prove the figure is wrong.

It proves that, with the information currently available to me, the figure is not independently reproducible.

That is the technical question I am asking this forum to help examine.

----------------------------------------
5. WHY THE SYS DATA MATTERS
----------------------------------------

The API evidence contains SYS-classified events around the affected period.

The timestamps identified so far include:

SUB:
first identified SYS event:
2026-08-09 07:10:22.977 UTC

MAIN:
SYS events identified between:
2026-08-09 07:10:42.520 UTC
and
2026-08-09 07:10:51.300 UTC

ELITE:
SYS event:
2026-08-09 07:10:42.503 UTC

One potentially important issue is that the first SUB SYS event appears at:

07:10:22.977 UTC

while the TUT incident window referenced in the material I received/compiled begins at approximately:

07:10:37 UTC.

I am deliberately NOT claiming what this means.

I want experienced members to examine it.

----------------------------------------
6. WHY I CANNOT FINISH THE CALCULATION YET
----------------------------------------

There are several pieces of information that I do not appear to have through the user-accessible API data alone.

Among them:

- historical account equity at the critical seconds
- historical cross-margin state
- internal liquidation engine records
- ADL/internal risk-engine records
- sufficiently granular mark/index prices
- Bitget's eligibility rules for compensation
- Bitget's internal compensation worksheet

Without those records, there may be a limit to what an external reconstruction can prove.

Determining that limit is itself one of the purposes of this thread.

----------------------------------------
7. WHAT HAS HAPPENED DURING THESE 15+ DAYS
----------------------------------------

During this period I have:

- contacted Bitget Support
- preserved support communications
- requested clarification of the compensation calculation
- requested relevant underlying records
- asked about escalation after Support considered the decision final
- preserved API-derived trading records
- reconstructed orders/fills/positions
- separated raw API facts from my own calculations
- generated hashes for the evidence package
- prepared a redacted public version for independent examination

I am still trying to resolve the matter directly with Bitget.

At the same time, I am independently reconstructing the technical evidence.

----------------------------------------
8. REGARDING LEGAL ACTION
----------------------------------------

Some members suggested that legal action may ultimately be necessary.

That may be true.

However, before reaching conclusions about litigation or jurisdiction, I want to make the technical record as strong as possible.

If I eventually have to present this dispute to a lawyer, regulator, court or other dispute-resolution body, I want to be able to distinguish clearly between:

FACT:
what Bitget's API returned

CALCULATION:
what can mathematically be derived from those records

HYPOTHESIS:
what I believe may have happened but cannot yet prove

MISSING EVIDENCE:
what only Bitget may possess internally

I think that distinction is essential.

----------------------------------------
9. I AM NOT ASKING MEMBERS TO CALL BITGET A SCAM
----------------------------------------

Another member posted information about accusations/reviews involving Bitget.

I appreciate members researching the company.

However, for purposes of MY case, I would prefer that we focus primarily on evidence that can be directly connected to this dispute.

I am not asking anyone here to assume Bitget committed fraud.

I want the technical evidence tested.

If Bitget's calculation is correct, I want to understand and reproduce it.

If my reconstruction is wrong, I want the error identified.

If neither can be determined without Bitget's internal records, I want to identify exactly which records are missing.

----------------------------------------
10. NEXT: EVIDENCE #2 — SYS EVENT TABLE
----------------------------------------

My next evidence post will contain a redacted table of the relevant SYS-classified API records.

For each record I intend to provide:

- UTC timestamp
- account label
- symbol
- side
- size
- order/execution price
- realized PnL
- SYS classification
- relevant API fields

This should allow members to stop relying on my description and begin examining the actual records.

After that I will post:

EVIDENCE #3
Position / order / fill reconstruction

EVIDENCE #4
Cross-margin and economic-impact reconstruction

EVIDENCE #5
Attempt to reproduce Bitget's 12,712.84 USDT compensation

----------------------------------------

My objective remains the same:

Do not trust my conclusion.

Audit the evidence.

If I am wrong, show me where.

If Bitget's 12,712.84 USDT figure can be reproduced, I want to see the calculation.

If it cannot be reproduced without internal Bitget records, let's identify exactly what Bitget would need to disclose to make the calculation independently verifiable.

Quote from: examplens on Today at 09:51:37 AM

Quote from: Slow death on Today at 09:26:55 AM

What I mean by this is that the chances of your problem being solved are extremely small.

As far as I can see, he doesn't have a case, he just expresses doubts about their algorithm and the way they calculated something.
We can still only guess about some important inputs here, such as why exactly $12,712.84? whose money it is and how much he "expected" compensation?

Thanks. This is a fair criticism, and I agree that I need to make this clearer.

12,712.84 USDT is not a number calculated or requested by me. It is the compensation amount determined by Bitget.

The money affected was mine, across the accounts involved in the TUTUSDT/BICOUSDT incident that I am reconstructing from Bitget API records.

The reason I dispute the 12,712.84 USDT figure is that I have not been able to reproduce how Bitget arrived at it.

From the API-derived records, I identified SYS-classified activity. Aggregating the realized PnL associated with those records currently gives:

MAIN: -30,107.61857092 USDT
SUB: -12,838.32027004 USDT
ELITE: -1,994.72 USDT
LINKED_KEY2: -1,082.30625 USDT

However, I want to emphasize something important:

I am NOT claiming that the sum of those SYS realized-PnL figures is automatically the amount Bitget owes me.

That is precisely what I am trying to determine.

To calculate a defensible compensation amount, I believe we need to distinguish normal trading losses from losses attributable to the incident, understand what the SYS records represent, reconstruct the affected cross-margin positions, account for any relevant BICO/TUT interactions, and then subtract any amount already compensated.

So if you ask me today, “How much should Bitget have compensated you?”, my answer is:

I do not want to invent a number before the reconstruction is complete.

What I can say is that Bitget determined 12,712.84 USDT, called that determination “final,” and I currently cannot reproduce that figure from the records available to me.

If their number is correct, I want to understand the calculation that produces exactly 12,712.84 USDT.

If my reconstruction is wrong, I want someone here to identify where it fails.

My next post will therefore contain the actual redacted SYS event table, including timestamps, account, symbol, side, size, price, realized PnL and relevant API fields.

That should give everyone something concrete to audit rather than relying on my interpretation.

I appreciate you challenging this point because this is exactly the kind of scrutiny I came here for.

Quote from: examplens on Today at 09:51:37 AM

Quote from: Slow death on Today at 09:26:55 AM

What I mean by this is that the chances of your problem being solved are extremely small.

As far as I can see, he doesn't have a case, he just expresses doubts about their algorithm and the way they calculated something.
We can still only guess about some important inputs here, such as why exactly $12,712.84? whose money it is and how much he "expected" compensation?

From what I understand, that $12,712.84 is compensation and it was a final decision made by Bitget. So, if it's a final decision, the OP can only appeal to the courts, because I highly doubt that Bitget will reverse this decision. That's why I said they already have many scam accusations against them. It will also be much more expensive to hire a lawyer in Singapore, and it's possible that with the CEO's influence, the OP won't even be able to report them in Singapore. My advice to the OP is to accept the $12,712.84 and move on with their life, use another exchange instead of chasing explanations they won't receive because Bitget made a final decision.

Quote from: Slow death on Today at 01:28:43 PM

Quote from: examplens on Today at 09:51:37 AM

Quote from: Slow death on Today at 09:26:55 AM

What I mean by this is that the chances of your problem being solved are extremely small.

As far as I can see, he doesn't have a case, he just expresses doubts about their algorithm and the way they calculated something.
We can still only guess about some important inputs here, such as why exactly $12,712.84? whose money it is and how much he "expected" compensation?

From what I understand, that $12,712.84 is compensation and it was a final decision made by Bitget. So, if it's a final decision, the OP can only appeal to the courts, because I highly doubt that Bitget will reverse this decision. That's why I said they already have many scam accusations against them. It will also be much more expensive to hire a lawyer in Singapore, and it's possible that with the CEO's influence, the OP won't even be able to report them in Singapore. My advice to the OP is to accept the $12,712.84 and move on with their life, use another exchange instead of chasing explanations they won't receive because Bitget made a final decision.

Thank you. I understand your point, and I have seriously considered simply accepting the 12,712.84 USDT and moving on.

But before doing that, I decided to try a different approach, and I would genuinely like your opinion on whether you think it is worth continuing.

Since normal support has not produced a resolution that I can independently verify, I have been documenting the dispute publicly.

I created a dedicated website where I am organizing the chronology, compensation figures, communications and technical evidence from the case. I am trying to make it possible for anyone interested to examine what happened rather than simply relying on my accusations.

I have also been discussing the case publicly on X.

One particularly important part of the public record is that I contacted Bitget CEO Gracy Chen directly on X, and on August 18 she publicly replied to me:

“Got it, will resolve the problem for you.”

I preserved that public reply.

Unfortunately, despite that statement and the subsequent escalation, I still do not have what I consider a technically verifiable resolution of the dispute.

Because of this, I have started using X to document the progression of the case and to show the difference between what was publicly promised and what subsequently happened.

I have posted screenshots, updates and explanations under Bitget-related discussions so that other users can see that this dispute exists and examine the evidence themselves.

I am also producing visual material and AI-assisted videos explaining the timeline in a simpler format. The intention is not to fabricate evidence — the underlying screenshots, API records and communications remain the actual evidence. The videos are only a way of presenting the documented chronology to a wider audience.

At the same time, I created a website dedicated to the case where the amounts, chronology and supporting material can be organized in one place rather than scattered across social media.

I am also considering contacting cryptocurrency journalists, financial journalists, YouTube channels and potentially television/news organizations to see whether anyone is interested in independently examining the case.

My approach would be to provide them with the documentation and let them reach their own conclusions.

I am deliberately trying to distinguish between:

what I can prove,

what I calculated,

what Bitget has stated,

and what remains unanswered.

I also continue commenting publicly on Bitget's X posts about my unresolved case. However, I am beginning to question whether posting repeatedly under many of their posts is actually helping.

Perhaps a smaller number of well-documented posts, combined with the website, this Bitcointalk thread and contact with journalists, would be more credible and effective than continuously posting comments.

That is actually something I would appreciate your opinion about.

Do you think continuing this public documentation campaign makes sense?

Or, given that Bitget has already declared the 12,712.84 USDT compensation “final,” do you think I am simply wasting more time and should accept it and move on?

I am reluctant to abandon the case because this involves a significant amount of money for me, and I now have a considerable amount of technical documentation preserved.

At the same time, I don't want this to become an emotional campaign that damages the credibility of the technical case.

My objective is to make the evidence visible enough that Bitget either provides a reproducible explanation of the compensation calculation or that independent people can examine the dispute and reach their own conclusions.

I appreciate your candid opinion, even if your advice is that I should stop.

Quote from: Slow death on Today at 09:26:55 AM

These guys have many scam accusations against them.

August 2026: 13 scam accusations

July 2026: 11 scam accusations

June 2026: 14 scam accusations

May 2026: 14 scam accusations

April 2026: 7 scam accusations

March 2026: 9 scam accusations

source: https://www.trustpilot.com/review/bitget.com

As you can see, they have had scam accusations every month. This shows that they don't provide good service and are used to people complaining about their services, and they do nothing to change that. Probably because they believe they continued to have clients even with some scam accusations against them, and also believe that people won't spend money paying lawyers to take them to court, because those are high costs that can even exceed the amount they stole from the person. According to this website "contactout.com", their physical address is located in Singapore.

Quote from: https://contactout.com/company/Bitget-Group-38572/headquarters

60 PAYA LEBAR ROAD#08-55 PAYA LEBAR SQUARE, Singapore, Singapore, 409051, SG

source: https://contactout.com/company/Bitget-Group-38572/headquarters

You would have to travel to Singapore to hire a local lawyer to sue them, knowing that they may not even have a physical office in Singapore, or even if they did, they may have strong connections with authorities in that country, and you might not succeed in your case. Just look at who owns this exchange:

https://www.bitget.com/promotion/aboutus

What I mean by this is that the chances of your problem being solved are extremely small.

Thank you for researching this and for bringing these references to the thread.

Since you have already looked into other complaints involving Bitget, perhaps you can help me with something that may be more useful than simply telling me to give up.

Can you help me identify other documented cases that resemble mine?

In particular, I am looking for cases involving:

Bitget futures incidents;
cross-margin positions;
SYS-classified orders/fills;
liquidation or forced position changes;
compensation following an exchange incident;
users who received compensation but could not reproduce how the amount was calculated;
cases where Bitget declared a compensation decision “final” without providing the underlying calculation.

I think this could be valuable because I don't want this thread to become merely another accusation against an exchange.

I want to build a documented case that people can actually investigate.

I already have API-derived trading records, orders, fills, position information, timestamps, communications with Bitget and the compensation decision.

The compensation offered was 12,712.84 USDT.

My current analysis of the SYS-classified records produces substantially different figures, but I am deliberately NOT claiming that those figures represent what Bitget legally or contractually owes me. That is exactly what I am trying to determine.

I have also preserved Bitget CEO Gracy Chen's public response to me on X on August 18:

“Got it, will resolve the problem for you.”

More than two weeks into this dispute, I am still trying to obtain a reproducible explanation of how the final compensation figure was determined.

I have therefore started documenting the case publicly rather than allowing all of the information to disappear inside private support tickets.

I also created a dedicated website where I am organizing the chronology, evidence, amounts and responses so that people do not have to search through dozens of forum posts and screenshots.

What would help me most now is independent research.

If you or other members find previous cases with similar circumstances, please post the links here.

Even cases that contradict my position would be useful.

For example, if somebody can find another Bitget compensation case where the methodology was disclosed and the user was able to reproduce the calculation, I absolutely want to see it.

Likewise, if someone understands what Bitget's SYS classification specifically represents in these futures records, that would be extremely helpful.

I would also appreciate it if experienced members could point other traders, developers or exchange-API specialists to this thread. I am not asking anyone to attack Bitget or automatically support me.

I want more people questioning the evidence — including my evidence.

The more independent eyes we have on the records, the harder it becomes for either side, including me, to make claims that the data does not support.

I am also considering approaching cryptocurrency journalists and other media with the complete documented chronology. Before doing that, I want this thread to contain enough technical material that a journalist can independently understand what is actually being disputed.

So if you are willing to help, the most valuable things would be:

1. Find comparable Bitget cases.

2. Find any public documentation explaining their compensation methodology.

3. Challenge my API reconstruction when I publish the next evidence table.

4. Point technically experienced people to this thread.

5. Identify any regulatory, legal or dispute-resolution information that can be independently verified.

I don't want this case amplified because people are angry.

I want it amplified because the underlying questions deserve answers.

If Bitget's 12,712.84 USDT calculation is correct, there should ultimately be a technical explanation for why it is correct.

And if the available user records are insufficient to verify it, then identifying exactly what internal records are missing is itself an important result.

Thank you again for contributing to the investigation.

@OP
Can you please make it simply?
Sorry for being direct, but as can you see it's clearly impossible to understand your claim.
12712,84 as final but  what happens and what is the difference you would expect and WHY?
Also, you have make a website about this incident and not yet find a lawyer on line or using AI to analyze your issue with their ToS?

Quote from: bitbollo on Today at 02:50:45 PM

@OP
Can you please make it simply?
Sorry for being direct, but as can you see it's clearly impossible to understand your claim.
12712,84 as final but  what happens and what is the difference you would expect and WHY?
Also, you have make a website about this incident and not yet find a lawyer on line or using AI to analyze your issue with their ToS?

Thanks for being direct. You are right that I made the case too complicated, so let me explain it as simply and transparently as possible.

First, my background matters here.

I am a systems analyst/software developer with more than 28 years of experience.

I developed my own trading/data-analysis software connected directly to Bitget's APIs. The system collects and analyzes orders, fills, positions, realized PnL and other trading information.

I was not simply trading randomly and then complaining because I lost a trade. I had been developing and using this system to analyze my trading, and during that period I was averaging around $5,000 per week.

Then the August 9 TUT/BICO incident happened.

WHAT HAPPENED?

My positions were using cross margin.

During the affected period, activity occurred across my linked accounts and the Bitget API subsequently showed multiple records classified as SYS.

After the incident, Bitget reviewed my case and eventually determined that my compensation should be:

12,712.84 USDT

Bitget later told me that this compensation amount and decision were “final.”

That is where my dispute begins.

HOW MUCH DO MY API RECORDS SHOW?

I connected directly to Bitget's APIs and reconstructed the available records.

When I aggregate the realized PnL associated with the SYS-classified records that I identified, I currently obtain:

MAIN: -30,107.62 USDT
SUB: -12,838.32 USDT
ELITE: -1,994.72 USDT
LINKED_KEY2: -1,082.31 USDT

TOTAL SYS-classified realized PnL: approximately -46,022.97 USDT

Bitget compensation:

12,712.84 USDT

Raw difference:

approximately 33,310.13 USDT

Now, this is extremely important:

I am NOT saying that Bitget automatically owes me 46,022.97 USDT.

And I am NOT yet claiming that Bitget unquestionably owes me another 33,310.13 USDT.

The approximately 46,022.97 USDT is what my reconstruction currently identifies as realized PnL associated with the SYS-classified records.

What I need to determine is how much of that economic impact is actually attributable to the incident and how much legitimately qualifies for compensation.

Because the positions were in cross margin, simply adding every negative PnL number would not be a technically responsible way to calculate the claim.

SO WHAT EXACTLY AM I DISPUTING?

This:

My reconstruction identifies approximately 46,022.97 USDT in SYS-classified realized PnL.

Bitget determined that only 12,712.84 USDT should be compensated.

I want to understand the calculation that bridges those two numbers.

What was excluded?

Why was it excluded?

Which positions were considered affected?

Which losses were considered normal trading losses?

Which losses were considered incident-related?

What prices and timestamps were used?

How was cross-margin equity treated?

What eligibility rules were applied?

What mathematical calculation produces exactly 12,712.84 USDT?

If Bitget can demonstrate that calculation, I can compare it against the API records.

If their calculation is correct, I will acknowledge that publicly.

WHY CAN'T I CALCULATE THE FINAL CORRECT COMPENSATION MYSELF YET?

Because some critical information does not appear to be available through the normal user-accessible API.

For example:

historical equity/margin snapshots at the critical seconds;
internal liquidation/risk-engine records;
ADL/internal system logs;
sufficiently granular historical mark/index prices;
Bitget's exact compensation eligibility criteria as applied to my positions;
Bitget's internal compensation worksheet.

I can reconstruct a considerable amount from the API, but I cannot invent internal exchange data that I do not possess.

That is why I am being careful about saying:

“Bitget owes me exactly X.”

At this point, the technically honest statement is:

The API-derived SYS records I identified contain approximately 46,022.97 USDT of realized PnL, while Bitget compensated 12,712.84 USDT, leaving an approximately 33,310.13 USDT raw difference that I am trying to explain.

THERE IS ALSO A TIMESTAMP QUESTION

The first SYS event I identified in the SUB account occurred at:

2026-08-09 07:10:22.977 UTC

The TUT incident window referenced in the material I received/compiled begins at approximately:

07:10:37 UTC

That SYS record therefore appears approximately 14 seconds earlier.

I am NOT saying that this proves manipulation, fraud or wrongdoing.

I am saying that it is something that needs a technical explanation.

WHAT EVIDENCE HAVE I PRESERVED?

Because of my technical background, I decided not to rely only on screenshots or my memory of what happened.

I built tools to collect, organize and analyze the available Bitget data.

I have preserved and/or reconstructed:

raw API-derived JSON records;
orders;
fills;
positions;
SYS-classified events;
timestamps;
realized PnL;
account-level reconstruction;
Bitget communications;
compensation communications;
reconstructed tables;
SHA-256 hashes for evidence integrity.

I am deliberately separating the material into:

FACTS — information returned by Bitget's API.

CALCULATIONS — results produced from those records.

HYPOTHESES — interpretations that still require verification.

MISSING DATA — records that appear to exist only internally at Bitget.

This distinction is important to me because, after more than 28 years working with systems, I understand that data and interpretation of data are not the same thing.

WHY DID I CREATE A WEBSITE?

Because this has been going on for more than 15 days and the amount involved represents a very significant loss for me.

I didn't want the evidence scattered across support tickets, emails, screenshots and social-media posts.

So I created a website specifically to document the chronology and evidence surrounding the dispute:

mybitgetcase.com

The purpose is not to ask people to blindly believe me.

It is to preserve the case publicly and allow others to examine it.

WHAT ABOUT A LAWYER AND BITGET'S TERMS OF SERVICE?

Yes, I am also examining that route.

I have been reviewing the dispute-resolution issue and trying to determine the appropriate legal/escalation path.

But I don't want to go to a lawyer with nothing more than:

“I think Bitget owes me more money.”

I want to arrive with:

raw records,

reconstructed transactions,

timestamps,

calculations,

Bitget's communications,

evidence integrity hashes,

the amount Bitget paid,

what can be independently proven,

and a precise list of the internal records that Bitget would need to produce to complete the reconstruction.

I believe that makes a much stronger case technically and, if necessary, legally.

SO, IN ONE SENTENCE, THIS IS MY CASE:

Bitget compensated me 12,712.84 USDT after the TUT/BICO incident, while my reconstruction identifies approximately 46,022.97 USDT of realized PnL associated with SYS-classified records; I am asking Bitget and independent reviewers to explain what happened to the approximately 33,310.13 USDT difference and determine what portion is actually attributable to the incident.

I am not asking this forum to automatically take my side.

If my analysis is wrong, please show me where it is wrong.

If 12,712.84 USDT is correct, show me how that number can be reproduced.

And if neither can be established without Bitget's internal records, then I want to identify exactly which records Bitget needs to provide.

That is the entire purpose of this thread.