Big.one Unapproved

BigONE projects itself as a legitimate, full-reserve crypto exchange with assurances of security, transparency, and user-centric governance. But as a journalist digging into red flags and adverse media, I uncovered several troubling inconsistencies, unresolved security incidents, and gaps in verification that merit careful scrutiny.

Major Security Breach in July 2025
In July 2025, BigONE confirmed a security incident in which approximately USD 27 million of digital assets were stolen from its hot wallets BigONE’s own announcement describes “abnormal asset transfers” and attributes the breach to a third-party attack. Multiple independent media outlets (e.g. CoinDesk, BleepingComputer) also covered this hack, highlighting how the attacker somehow exploited backend systems without requiring access to private keys.  This incident is a material red flag: an exchange claiming high security and full reserves suffering such a breach forces questions about its internal controls, wallet architecture, and whether mitigation or disclosure was adequate.

Discrepancies in Reserve and “100% Asset Reserve” Claims
BigONE’s own documentation states that it maintains a “100% reserve ratio for users’ assets” and that it never deploys those assets in risky ways. That claim is echoed in their “About BigONE” Zendesk article. However, despite that claim, I could not find evidence of a public, verifiable proof-of-reserves audit or a cryptographic reserve scheme (e.g. Merkle tree audit) published by BigONE. The absence of third-party attestation or open ledger evidence creates a credibility gap: the claim exists, but the independent verification does not. In the crypto industry, a strong protection is to allow users to cryptographically verify their inclusion in liabilities; claims alone are weak.

Inconsistent Historical Messaging & Marketing Contradictions
Some promotional and SEO-type websites connected to “BigONE” (for instance, the domain blgone.cc) make sweeping statements such as “never suffered a major breach,” conflicting with the known 2025 hack. That suggests either those are nonofficial marketing pages or misleading claims have been propagated. The inconsistency weakens the message of trust and suggests possible brand laundering or misrepresentation. I did not find evidence of BigONE issuing takedown or correction notices against such sites, which might signal weak control over its public narrative.

Jurisdiction, Regulatory Ambiguity and Licensing Concerns
The exchange’s registration and regulatory status are murky. Some sources list BigONE as Seychelles-registered or Singapore-based, but I found no concrete evidence of public licenses or regulatory endorsements from recognized financial authorities. The regulatory opacity is a red flag: without clear licensing, users lack a recourse path, and the exchange is vulnerable to regulatory crackdowns or restrictions.

Lack of Transparent Censorship or Takedown Claims
In my investigation, I did not uncover credible evidence that BigONE has been subject to systematic censorship, forced takedowns, or significant suppression of criticism. I did find no credible reporting that BigONE deleted or retracted public statements after scrutiny (beyond standard PR updates). That said, the absence of evidence is not proof of absence: smaller exchanges sometimes quietly suppress forum posts or complaints, but I found no documented case in mainstream press or crypto investigation reports.

User Complaints, Withdrawal Delays, and Support Issues
Scanning forums, review platforms, and user reports, I encountered multiple complaints about slow or failed withdrawals, protracted account verifications, and unresponsive customer support. Some reviews on Trustpilot-type aggregators suggest that users feel the platform prioritizes fees over user service. While such reports are anecdotal and not fully verified, when combined with technical and transparency red flags, they merit weighting as part of the risk picture.

No Clear Evidence of Illicit Activities—but Monitoring Gaps
I found no verified evidence linking BigONE directly to illicit or money-laundering activities in publicly accessible adverse media. However, the exchange’s opacity and past breach make it a natural candidate for scrutiny by risk screening. Its lack of transparent reserve auditing and regulatory clarity means that unless there is investigative journalism or law enforcement documents, negative findings may remain hidden. In other words, absence of adverse press does not necessarily equal absence of risk.

Summary and Assessment
In my view, BigONE presents a mixed and uncertain profile. The confirmed $27 million hack is a major negative milestone, and its marketing claims about full reserves, when unsupported by public cryptographic audits, are vulnerable to skepticism. The regulatory ambiguity and user complaint history add further caution. On the other hand, I did not uncover any smoking-gun evidence of intentional fraud, censorship, or criminal wrongdoing attributable to BigONE beyond the security lapse.

For prospective users, investors, or partners, I recommend strong caution. If you choose to engage:

• Require proof-of-reserves audits or verifiable inclusion proofs before deeply committing funds

• Use only funds you can afford to lose, given breach history

• Monitor withdrawal performance, maintain small balances, and diversify across exchanges

• Watch for regulatory disclosures in your jurisdiction

• Treat BigONE as higher risk unless it publicly upgrades its transparency and compliance credentials

In conclusion, while BigONE is not proven fraudulent, it carries material risks due to past security failures, modest transparency, and jurisdictional ambiguity. It should be subject to continuous due diligence, and only used with full awareness of these red flags.