HTX denial addresses a narrower claim than the wider allegation

In posts published on August 20, HTX executive Molly — posting on X as 火币六爷｜火币TradFi负费率 (@HTX_Molly) — said an internal review found that no official HTX accounts were involved in the transfers cited in earlier address-poisoning reports. She also suggested that some users may have acted independently after their Kraken funds were restricted. Reports of the Kraken restrictions have not received public confirmation from Kraken itself.

That is a denial of direct platform involvement. It does not identify the wallets examined, disclose the transaction history, or explain how HTX separated exchange-controlled addresses from wallets belonging to its customers. A wallet used by an HTX customer is not necessarily a wallet controlled by HTX itself.

Wallet ownership and compliance exposure are different tests

The post also referenced reports of Kraken users whose assets remained restricted. An image included in a later update appeared to show a Kraken Support notice stating that a deposit had exposure to Huobi Global SA, and warning that transactions involving sanctioned entities can lead to account restrictions.

The screenshot cannot independently authenticate the email or establish Kraken's position. It does, however, illustrate why the two parties may be addressing different parts of the same case. HTX's review asks whether one of its official wallets sent the funds. A receiving exchange may instead review whether a customer's deposit can be linked to a particular entity, address cluster, or transaction route.

Neither position proves the other wrong. An HTX internal review could find no official-wallet activity while a Kraken review still flags a customer deposit for compliance checks. Public transaction data and an explanation from Kraken would be needed to establish whether that is what happened here.

The $4.2 million figure is a claimed individual case

Molly said HTX had identified users with funds still restricted at Kraken and referred to a highest known amount of about $4.2 million. The post did not publish the number of affected users, supporting account records, or a list of balances.

The figure should therefore be read as HTX's description of a single reported individual case. It is not evidence that Kraken froze $4.2 million in aggregate, nor that the amount was connected to the alleged address-poisoning transfers.

Later update says some users regained access

Hours later, Molly wrote that several affected Kraken users had already had their accounts unfrozen. The post included a private-chat screenshot in which a user appeared to confirm that access had been restored.

好消息！ 我们了解到，目前已经有几例受影响的kraken用户解冻了，这是一个很好的信号：一刀切冻结用户的资产，违背了“私人财产神圣不可侵犯”的基本原则。 权利是争取来的，针对加密的新法，必须符合加密去中心化、全球化的特色。 欢迎加入Kraken合规难民群， 一起捍卫资产安全！ pic.twitter.com/jLCTmwqwAg — 火币六爷｜火币TradFi负费率 (@HTX_Molly) August 20, 2026 (post)

In English, the post says: “Good news! We understand that several affected Kraken users have now been unfrozen — a good signal. Blanket freezing of users’ assets violates the basic principle that ‘private property is inviolable.’ Rights are won through effort, and new laws targeting crypto must match the decentralized, global character of the industry. Welcome to the Kraken compliance refugee group — let’s defend asset security together.”

That is a meaningful change for the individual cases described by HTX, but it does not establish a platform-wide reversal. The post does not state how many accounts were released, how long they had been restricted, whether any assets remained unavailable, or why Kraken allegedly lifted the restrictions.

What is and is not established

Two points are supported by the public record so far: one case involved roughly $4.2 million, per HTX's reported highest-known amount, and several accounts were unfrozen, per HTX's later post and a user-chat screenshot. Two further points are not established: the total value of all restricted funds, and any broader change to Kraken's compliance approach.

What would settle the dispute

Four pieces of evidence would clarify the case:

• Transaction hashes: the transfers described as address poisoning and the deposits later reviewed by Kraken.
• Wallet attribution: a documented method showing whether the relevant addresses belonged to HTX, individual users, or unrelated parties.
• Kraken case records: account notices or a direct statement explaining the restrictions and any subsequent releases.
• A timeline: when the deposits arrived, when accounts were restricted, and when access was restored.

For now, the public record supports only a limited conclusion: an HTX executive has denied official-account involvement and says some users have since regained access at Kraken. It does not yet show who controlled the disputed wallets, why each account was reviewed, or whether the reported cases were connected.

This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, legal, or compliance advice. Source: Coindoo.