Alleged $735M Bitcoin Short Before Trump Tariff Raises Insider Trading Questions as Ex-BitForex CEO Garrett Jin Denies Link

• Short opened minutes before Trump’s tariff announcement and coincided with a sharp BTC price drop

• Wallet responsible for the $735M position has been linked by on‑chain researchers to a high‑profile individual, which he denies

• On‑chain timing, public social posts, and prior memecoin trades are cited as context; independent researchers remain divided

Bitcoin insider trading allegations surfaced after a $735M short before Trump’s tariff announcement; COINOTAG examines on‑chain evidence and market reaction.

What is Bitcoin insider trading?

Bitcoin insider trading describes trades made with material, non‑public information that affect Bitcoin’s market price. In this case, an unusually timed $735 million short executed minutes before a presidential tariff statement has prompted questions about whether privileged information influenced the trade or simply coincided with routine market activity.

How did the $735M short before the tariff announcement trigger scrutiny?

On‑chain data show a large short position opened less than an hour before the US presidential tariff comment, and the position size—approximately $735 million—was large enough to move liquidity and sentiment. Researchers using blockchain analytics flagged the wallet, linking it to a public identity; that claim generated rapid social media attention and retweets from prominent industry figures. Public statements from the individuals named, analysis by independent sleuths, and the timing of the trade form the primary basis for scrutiny.

Summary of events: Minutes before a presidential social media post announcing “a tariff of 100% on China,” a wallet opened a sizable short on Bitcoin. The market reacted quickly: Bitcoin briefly traded near $102,000 on major exchanges. On‑chain researcher Eye attributed control of the wallet to Garrett Jin, former BitForex CEO, prompting further debate and denials.

Garrett Jin publicly responded on X, stating he had “no connection with the Trump family” and denying direct involvement in the trade. Jin also said the wallet in question belonged to a client and criticized a prominent executive for amplifying the allegation by sharing the researcher’s post. The on‑chain claim and Jin’s denial were both posted publicly and remain central to the narrative.

Background and context: prior patterns that raise concern

Allegations of trades exploiting privileged or early information are not new in crypto. Earlier this year, a trade on the memecoin Bubb (BUBB) realized more than $482,000 before a rapid price collapse. In a separate incident, a wallet purchased roughly $6 million of the Official Trump (TRUMP) memecoin almost immediately after its launch, drawing similar scrutiny. These prior events contribute to heightened sensitivity when large, well‑timed positions appear.

What do independent researchers and analysts say?

Blockchain investigators are split. Some researchers maintained that the wallet’s transaction patterns and historical associations are consistent with control by a single actor tied to the accused individual; others, including on‑chain sleuths who go by ZachXBT and Quinten Francois, argued the evidence could indicate an associate or an opportunistic trader rather than direct control. These disagreements underscore the difficulty of proving intent from blockchain data alone.

Frequently Asked Questions

Was the $735M Bitcoin short illegal insider trading?

Determining illegality requires proof of material non‑public information being used for trading and legal jurisdictional authority. Blockchain timing and public social posts are evidence for scrutiny, but regulators and prosecutors, not on‑chain researchers, must establish illegal insider trading under applicable securities or commodities laws.

How can I tell if a big crypto trade is insider trading?

Look for tight timing between private announcements and trades, repeated patterns tied to one wallet, public statements acknowledging control, and corroborating off‑chain evidence. However, many large trades are executed by whales or market makers and may not involve illicit information.

Key Takeaways

• Timing matters: The $735M short opened minutes before a major tariff announcement, prompting suspicion.
• Attribution is contested: On‑chain researchers linked the wallet to a former exchange CEO, who denies personal control and says the wallet was a client’s.
• Evidence vs. proof: On‑chain data establish chronology and associations; legal conclusions about insider trading need additional off‑chain proof and regulatory review.

Conclusion

COINOTAG’s review of the event shows that while on‑chain timing and large position size create legitimate questions about potential Bitcoin insider trading, the current public record contains contested attributions and conflicting analyses. Further investigation by regulators or forensic auditors and additional off‑chain evidence would be required to substantiate legal claims. Readers should follow updates from on‑chain researchers and official statements as the situation develops.

Publication date: October 13, 2025
Updated: October 13, 2025
Author: COINOTAG