Garrett Jin Hyperliquid withdrawal: A wallet linked to Jin moved about $147M to Binance, leaving roughly $92K. Here’s what the on-chain data shows.
Author: Kritika Gupta
25th September 2026 – On-chain monitors say a Garrett Jin Hyperliquid account drained roughly $147 million in USDC and sent it to Binance.
High Signal Summary For A Quick Glance
Omega
@omega_netw0rk
@arkham Garrett's liquidation strategy is almost as efficient as his trading skills!
GARRETT JIN'S $150M ACCOUNT IS EMPTY Garrett Jin deposited a total of $146.98M to Binance, with his Hyperliquid account left with only $92.1K. A few hours later, $200M moved out of Binance and into a wallet cluster, that lost $50M in March by trying to buy AAVE from the mobile https://t.co/obM7UjhS6K
06:58 AM·Sep 25, 2026
Old Wang Next Door
@wowosky777
@arkham emptying a $150M account straight to binance is a bold move 👀
GARRETT JIN'S $150M ACCOUNT IS EMPTY Garrett Jin deposited a total of $146.98M to Binance, with his Hyperliquid account left with only $92.1K. A few hours later, $200M moved out of Binance and into a wallet cluster, that lost $50M in March by trying to buy AAVE from the mobile https://t.co/obM7UjhS6K
06:57 AM·Sep 25, 2026
Cryptoartmaster
@VitalijMatros
@arkham $150m deposit to Binance is just fuel for the next arbitrage run.
GARRETT JIN'S $150M ACCOUNT IS EMPTY Garrett Jin deposited a total of $146.98M to Binance, with his Hyperliquid account left with only $92.1K. A few hours later, $200M moved out of Binance and into a wallet cluster, that lost $50M in March by trying to buy AAVE from the mobile https://t.co/obM7UjhS6K
06:44 AM·Sep 25, 2026
High attention and emotional sentiment detected.
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.
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.
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.
Key milestones in the Hyperliquid and Binance transfers
A mobile AAVE swap turns about $50M into approximately $36K worth of AAVE. The cluster’s connection to Garrett Jin remains disputed.
An account linked to Jin deposits the funds to Binance. Arkham reports about $92.1K remains in the Hyperliquid account.
Arkham says the funds leave Binance for a cluster it links to the March AAVE swap. It has not confirmed that Jin owns the funds.
A statement or further evidence could clarify whether the funds were repositioned, moved as part of an exit, or transferred without authorization.
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.
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 $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.
Money flows linked to the Hyperliquid withdrawal
Binance’s internal transfers are not public, so the $200M outflow cannot be matched transaction by transaction to the $146.98M deposit.
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.
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.
Our Crypto Talk is committed to unbiased, transparent, and true reporting to the best of our knowledge. This news article aims to provide accurate information in a timely manner. However, we advise the readers to verify facts independently and consult a professional before making any decisions based on the content since our sources could be wrong too. Check our Terms and conditions for more info.
Hyperliquid
