Talk:Bitget

Below is suggested content (not sure if reliable sources), but cool story as well. I leaving it here on consideration more experienced editors.

In 2024, Bitget delisted tokens that were associated with Anatoly Shariy. Exchange's executive promoted token called GRIMACE on his social profiles,^[1] and was subject of journalist investigation.^{[citation needed]} According to the Kommersant, reported that Russian police investigated a series of arson incidents affecting properties associated with people connected to token creator amid the dispute. Shariy publicly denied involvement.^[2][3][4]

Belle Femme Emmo (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

1. Evan Luthra on Bitget or this one 2. Lionel Messi on Bitget 3. [hack on Bitget] Belle Femme Emmo (talk) 06:38, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

More information not current sourcing issue, Source ...

not current sourcing issue
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Source assessment table prepared by User:Belle Femme Emmo Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG? AMF FRancee (short regulator warning; not an in-depth, analytical profile) ✘ No ASIC (regulatory warning; describes licensing/leverage risks, not an in-depth, fails GNG/CORPDEPTH) ✘ No Finance Magnates ✘ No FCA (UK) (general FCA press release about CFDs; not about Bitget as the subject; fails significant coverage of Bitget) ✘ No Sports Business Journal (short sponsorship/partnership news item; largely routine announcement, not in-depth) ✘ No SportsPro ✘ No Cointelegraph ~ (weak for GNG/CORPDEPTH) ✘ No Forbes India ~ ~ Partial Crypto.news ~ (weak for GNG/CORPDEPTH) ✘ No ForkLog (content is an interview based on executive statements; also marked “AI translated”) ~ (in-depth interview, but not secondary/analytical coverage) ✘ No YouTube (Anatoly Shariy) ~ (generally not WP:RS, but long “journalism investigation” (2 parts. part2 mentioned; ? Unknown Kommersant (not about Bitget as a subject) ✘ No Kommersant (not about Bitget as a subject) ✘ No CryptoRank ? Unknown CryptoPolitan ? Unknown Bitget Support Center (primary source; fails for GNG/CORPDEPTH) ✘ No Cointelegraph ✔ Yes Cointelegraph ✔ Yes Cointelegraph ✔ Yes ForkLog ~ ~ Partial Decrypt ✔ Yes Incrypted ✔ Yes WuBlockchain (Medium) ~ ~ (may be detailed but generally not WP:RS coz of Medium) ~ Partial charltonsquantum (not in-depth) ✘ No FI.ee (not in-depth) ✘ No ASC (Canada) Investor Caution List (not in-depth) ✘ No FSA (Japan) PDF (FSA warning) ✘ No The Edge Malaysia (not in-depth) ✘ No The Guardian (secondary; substantial context and in-depth) ✔ Yes The Washington Post (secondary; substantial context and in-depth) ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Close

Belle Femme Emmo (talk) 08:16, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Many of these sources you have listed as 'reliable' are not reliable at all, per countless past discussion on WP:RSN and elsewhere. None of these crypto outlets are generally reliable. Some may be reliable in some specific contexts, but that would have to be discussed on a case-by-case basis. Further, government documents are WP:PRIMARY. Start with reliable, independent sources, and use primary sources second. Unreliable sources, like Cointelgraph, Decrypto, WP:FORBESCON, etc. should only be used for a specific reason, and never for demonstrating WP:N. Likewise, churnalism and press releases are of little value, here. Grayfell (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

to avoid signs of WP:SYNTH I removed entire Grimace-Anatoly Shariy story. on other stories - I want to say that if I use (sometimes) primary sources, then this is given as a fact from the primary source, but is not used to prove the significance of the subject. Look at the other cryptocurrency exchanges, it feels like my drafts for Hyperliquid, Bitget, and MEXC contain far fewer primary sources than their articles.

crypto outlets - removed. googled to search alternatives - if no found - removing. it is OK.

Offtop: thank you for marking all my created articles in the mainspace by

Some of this article's listed sources may not be reliable. (December 2025)

You could do the same thing here. Someone will improve it later. as I see no one helps with drafts, but a page in the mainspace has a chance of being noticed by someone. I think I've reached the limit of my understanding of Wikipedia when it comes to improving declined drafts. Ofttop 2: sorry for edit war with you on ByBit. As I said, sometimes I've reached the limit of my understanding how it works. Belle Femme Emmo (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

You could do the same thing here. That makes it sound like you want other people to clean up your messes. Before you submit this yet again, remove all of the crypto sources and see what's left. No Cointelegraph, no 'Ledger Insights' no Forklog, no 'Charltons Quantum'. Don't use bad sources as an excuse to add original research. Start with reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Good lesson. Thank you. Done. (wow, I found even more reliable one source instead of 2 weak sources on Bybit loan) Belle Femme Emmo (talk) 09:07, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

_{"All of the independent references are covering governments stating not to use the exchange. Don't see how this could be notable."}

Nighfidelity's opinion noted. Legal status paragraph has been removed. (FYI Binance, ByBitt, KuCoin articles contain the same paragraph about legal status; it looks like industry standard here, no?) Belle Femme Emmo (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I noticed that Nighfidelity's experience is limited to only half a year on Wikipedia (as is mine), so I question his opinion. Below, I will compile 'source assessment table' for the Legal status section of the three articles mentioned above about exchanges. If Nighfidelity's opinion is correct, the Legal status paragraph on Binance, Bybit, and KuCoin needs to be cleaned up immediately as well. so it's gonna be place to reach a consensus regarding smth that looks as industry standard how to write simialr articles. Belle Femme Emmo (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Upd. I have compiled a table that leads us to a simple conclusion: the reviewer's comment suggests that we evaluate the subject in accordance with WP:GNG in cases (Legal status paragraph/article's section) where WP:GNG is practically impossible to implement (see SAT below).

@Nighfidelity, I apologize for comparing your experience to @Grayfell's. I did not mean to humiliate or offend you. I am genuinely surprised that my drafts are being reviewed by novices like myself. Belle Femme Emmo (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

More information Source, Independent? ...

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
FMA Austria warning (doc mirror to Finantsinspektsioon)			(regulator investor warning; RS for the fact of warning/authorization status, but short notice; not an in-depth analytical profile; fails CORPDEPTH/GNG)	✘ No
Alberta Securities Commission (ASC) Investment Caution List			(official watchlist entry; RS for registration status, but brief; not a company profile; fails CORPDEPTH/GNG)	✘ No
AMF France “BITGET is blacklisted”			(short regulator warning / blacklist notice; RS for the fact; not an in-depth profile; fails CORPDEPTH/GNG)	✘ No
BaFin (Germany) consumer notice (BG Limited investigated)			(regulator consumer warning; RS for authorization claim; typically short and event-specific; not CORPDEPTH/GNG)	✘ No
Japan FSA (Bitget Limited warning document)			(official regulator warning document; RS for the fact; brief; not an in-depth profile; fails CORPDEPTH/GNG)	✘ No
Japan FSA (list of unregistered financial instruments business operators)			(official warning list; RS for listing status; not narrative coverage; fails CORPDEPTH/GNG)	✘ No
The Edge Malaysia (SC adds entities to Investor Alert) List			(mainstream business press; still event-based list-style coverage; limited depth about Bitget specifically; generally not CORPDEPTH/GNG)	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Close

I have removed evaluations of sources for other articles from the above template. This talk page is for discussing improvements to this draft. It isn't for discussing KuCoin or Bybit. There is no reason to combine notes on other pages on this talk page. Grayfell (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

It means WP:GNG applies in cases such as Legal status section? My SAT consisting sources from same sections on Kucoin or Bybit was on purpose to show that it looks like industry's articles standard which I followed. Reviewer marked it as unreliable section. Belle Femme Emmo (talk) 06:20, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

These government documents seem very poor for demonstrating notability. Typically we need reliable, independent sources to interpret WP:PRIMARY sources for us. Whether the legal status section is included or not, the article will need such sources to demonstrate notability.

As for other articles, see WP:OTHERCONTENT, but also, it's still about sources. All three of the other articles you mention include more substantial sources than this draft. Grayfell (talk) 08:16, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Wow, Wiki literally have policy for that case even!!! (WP:OTHERCONTENT). Okay, I removed Legal status section, now good? Belle Femme Emmo (talk) 08:22, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Legal status section has been demolished, and instead 3 of 7 used sources moved to simple sentence in top heading "The platform has faced regulatory warnings in several jurisdictions". I think this is OK under consensus reached avobe. Sorry for mistake WP:OTHERCONTENT, I was not aware of it even.

More information Source, Independent? ...

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Reuters (used as source for infobox mentions about exchange's CEO in broader “Trump coin” listings story)			(Bitget is not the main subject)	✘ No
ASIC (Australia)			(Primary source; not in-depth)	✘ No
BaFin (Germany)			(Primary source; not in-depth)	✘ No
AMF (France)			(Primary source; not in-depth)	✘ No
RBC (RBK Group)			(significant coverage; addresses the topic directly and in detail)	✔ Yes
The Washington Post				✔ Yes
The Korea Times				✔ Yes
The Guardian				✔ Yes
Bitget Support Center (delisting notice for ARMY)			(primary source with no GNG value; usable only with caution for uncontroversial operational details)	✘ No
BankInfoSecurity / ISMG (BitKeep hack; useful background for Bitget Wallet lineage)			(Independent security trade press; incident write-up with third-party estimate (PeckShield); paired with a separate RS on rebrand/acquisition)	✔ Yes
HKEXnews (BC Technology Group circular / BGX subscription agreement PDF)			(Primary official doc; RS tell about transaction details; limited GNG value)	✘ No
Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing (BC Technology Group BGX agreement PDF)			(Primary official doc; might be RS for documentary facts; not in-depth)	✘ No
South China Morning Post				✔ Yes
Fortune			(in-depth)	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Close

Belle Femme Emmo (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2026 (UTC)