Garrett Jin Hyperliquid Drained $147M & Moved to Binance

The transfer emptied the account almost completely. According to Arkham, only $92.1K remained afterward. Trackers EmberCN and Lookonchain both flagged the sweep on 24 September.

What the Hyperliquid Monitors Reported

EmberCN posted first, at 09:24 UTC on 24 September. The account had moved 147 million USDC off Hyperliquid about half an hour earlier. So the on-chain hop likely landed near 08:50 UTC.

Lookonchain followed at 09:39 UTC with the same figure. It also noted that the trader had lost $14.7 million on Hyperliquid over the prior four months.

The address in question is 0x92ea19ECeB7a8dE0f50978A1583A5D8b018050e9. Before the withdrawal, monitors treated it as holding around $147 million to $150 million in USDC. Afterward, the balance sat near zero.

Notably, the account had already flattened its trades. On 21 September the book closed a ZEC short at a $35.44 million loss. It also closed a 1,333 BTC long at an $8.38 million gain. That left the Hyperliquid perps flat before the sweep.

The $200M Binance Outflow Arkham Flagged

Then the story widened. Arkham posted at 06:23 UTC on 25 September that “a few hours later, $200M moved out of Binance.”

According to Arkham, that money went into a wallet cluster with a strange history. The same cluster lost $50 million in March by trying to buy AAVE from a mobile interface.

Arkham also published a companion entity it labeled “AAVE Buyer (potentially Garrett Jin).” So the firm is drawing a line between the Hyperliquid deposit and the later Binance withdrawal.

Still, that line is an inference, not a confirmed trace. Hyperliquid withdrawals to a centralized exchange do not produce a single public hash across Binance’s internal ledger. As a result, Arkham can time a deposit and a later withdrawal, yet it cannot publish one continuous transaction.

Why Attribution Is Not Ownership

This is the part that needs care. On-chain analysts attribute wallets to people through clustering, and clustering is not a court finding.

Arkham ties the account to Jin through shared deposit addresses and ENS names like garrettjin.eth. The timing also overlaps with his own posts. Because of that pattern, monitors label the book as his. Even so, attribution does not prove beneficial ownership.

Jin has pushed back on this framing before. In October 2025 he wrote that “the fund isn’t mine, it’s my clients’.” That client-funds statement has never been withdrawn.

Investigator ZachXBT also questioned the original 2025 doxx. He said the cluster looked “more likely to be a friend of Jin,” per The Block. So even the identity link carries an asterisk.

Who Garrett Jin Actually Is

One correction matters up front. Garrett Jin is the former founder and CEO of BitForex, not a Bybit executive. Public records do not support the Bybit label that sometimes attaches to his name.

Jin ran BitForex from roughly 2017 to 2020. The exchange later faced unlicensed-operation flags, a February 2024 withdrawal halt, and an alleged $57 million hot-wallet shortfall. He has since been tied to WaveLabs, TanglePay, GroupFi, XHash staking, and LongLens Capital.

He became a public character in October 2025. On-chain sleuths linked his ENS names to a Hyperliquid whale. That whale opened a large BTC and ETH short just before the 10 October liquidation cascade. Jin denied insider trading and denied owning the fund.

The March AAVE Swap That Anchors the Cluster

The $50 million loss Arkham mentions is well documented. On 12 March 2026 a wallet swapped $50.43 million of Aave-wrapped USDT into AAVE through Aave’s mobile swap flow.

Because the order dwarfed the available liquidity, the trade printed about 99% price impact. In the end, the wallet received only about 327 AAVE, worth roughly $36,000. CoinDesk and Forbes both covered the outcome.

Lookonchain named Jin as the probable actor at the time, again through shared Binance deposit addresses. Jin did not confirm it. That episode is why analysts now call this the “cursed” cluster.

How the Market Read the Move

So far, no tier-1 outlet has published a dedicated report on the 24 September sweep. CoinDesk, The Block, Bloomberg, and Reuters have stayed quiet. Coverage instead sits with on-chain accounts and Asian wires such as BlockBeats and Odaily.

The dominant read is not “hack.” Analysts frame the move as repositioning, custody rotation, or a loss-driven exit from Hyperliquid risk. AInvest argued that traders may be misreading a routine post-loss move as a “smart-money exit.”

The funds also went into Binance rather than onto a spot order book. Therefore no clear AAVE, HYPE, or BTC price candle can be pinned to the flow yet.

What Comes Next for the Garrett Jin Hyperliquid Story

Several questions remain open. Nobody has confirmed whether the $200 million is the same $147 million plus other balances. It could also be a separate book Arkham is clustering.

Jin, Binance, and Hyperliquid have all stayed silent on this week’s activity. Until one of them speaks, the motive behind the Garrett Jin Hyperliquid exit stays unclear. Watch Arkham’s dashboards and the primary wallets for the next on-chain signal.

This article is for information only and is not financial advice. Always do your own research before acting on on-chain reports.