White Whale Launches $2M Campaign to Challenge MEXC Asset Freeze

A pseudonymous cryptocurrency trader, known as the White Whale, has launched a $2 million social media campaign against MEXC after the exchange reportedly froze $3.1 million of his assets in July 2025 [3]. The trader claims the freeze occurred without any breach of the platform’s terms of service and despite having completed Know-Your-Customer (KYC) procedures [2]. He has criticized the exchange for setting an arbitrary one-year review period and for lacking communication regarding the status of his funds [2].

The trader has offered a bounty to rally public support, allocating $1 million to be distributed among the first 20,000 participants who mint a free NFT on the Base network and use the hashtag FreeTheWhiteWhale to tag MEXC or its executives on social media. An additional $1 million is reserved for verified charitable donations, with the trader committing to on-chain transparency for these contributions [2]. Participants are also encouraged to update their social media profiles with campaign imagery [3].

The White Whale alleges that the freeze is a direct result of his consistent outperformance against MEXC’s market-making partners, which he claims has made him a target for retaliation [2]. Market makers, while essential for maintaining liquidity, are sometimes accused of engaging in parasitic behavior, such as creating artificial scarcity or distorting price discovery [3]. The trader’s campaign has sparked broader debates about risk controls, transparency, and the power imbalance between centralized exchanges and independent traders [3].

MEXC has denied the claims of retaliation, stating that the account freeze was a result of internal risk-control protocols and compliance concerns, not profitability [2]. The exchange clarified that such freezes apply only to accounts with potential coordinated violations, high-risk activity, or compliance issues and are subject to an extended review process [2]. The trader, however, has dismissed this explanation, arguing that his only "crime" was being too profitable [2].

The incident has reignited discussions around the role of liquidity providers and the governance of centralized crypto exchanges. Analysts note that the case reflects the growing tensions between individual traders and platforms over control of digital assets and the need for greater transparency [2]. While the outcome of the campaign remains uncertain, the scale of public engagement highlights the potential for traders to organize collective action in response to perceived injustices.