Unsolicited HTX dust makes taint an operations problem, not a blocklist problem

Justin Sun wrote in Chinese on X on August 18 that reports of HTX wallets spraying small USDT transfers at unrelated addresses were fabricated, posting a translation that reads "The investigation is clear: it's all made up" ^[1]. Whether or not the transfers happened, the exposure being described is not theft but screening, because HTX is being treated as a sanctioned counterparty in the United Kingdom and the European Union ^[8].

The mechanics matter more than the denial. A trader known as 0xZiye said he received 7.5 USDT into a Coinbase account and attributed it to HTX ^[4], writing that "HTX is crazily transferring out small amounts, polluting other addresses" ^[5], and claiming Coinbase told him the account would be closed unless he explained where the funds came from ^[6]. Reported amounts ran as high as 12 USDT, which is not the near-zero value typical of a dust attack ^[7]. Traders spent hours circulating screenshots of unsolicited USDT arriving from wallets that blockchain explorers tagged as belonging to the exchange ^[3].

That tag is the whole problem. Wallets that withdrew from HTX after May 26 are considered in breach of the UK and EU measures, which is what produced the freezes recipients experienced when funds hit their Coinbase addresses ^[9]. By August 18 that cutoff was 84 days old ^[20]. Binance has frozen transactions tied to HTX, Exmo and more than a dozen other exchanges plus some decentralised venues ^[10], and Hyperliquid has begun blacklisting HTX-linked addresses ^[11]. An operator cannot refuse an inbound transfer, so the cost of a ten-dollar deposit is borne by the account holder in the form of a source-of-funds review.

HTX says it did not send them. The exchange stated it had "not conducted any related transfers or testing activities" and would not speculate before finishing its review ^[12], and Molly, its head of marketing, said the platform "absolutely" did not behave this way, blaming either a misunderstanding or deliberate sabotage ^[13]. The exchange also raised attribution: explorers and analytics firms assign labels from ownership disclosures and clustering, and a displayed tag is not proof the named exchange authorised a payment ^[14]. HTX said it was checking whether address tagging or on-chain source identification had produced a false link ^[15], and later said it had reviewed tens of thousands of deposit and withdrawal orders across platforms without finding new frozen cases ^[16].

The available evidence is thin on both sides. Sun gave no supporting detail, did not name the accusers, describe the transfers, or say what his team examined ^[2]. On the other side, no confirmed losses have been reported, and no transaction hashes, victim count or permanent freezes have been verified ^[19]. The analyst Phyrex said 0xZiye's Coinbase account had returned to normal, that others in the same position could ask Coinbase support to review their case, and that he had contacted Coinbase Singapore, which escalated the matter to departments including the legal team ^[17]. Phyrex also said he was in contact with the HTX team ^[18].

Watch for transaction hashes tied to a named operator, since without them this stays a labelling dispute ^[19]. Watch whether more venues follow Binance and Hyperliquid in blacklisting HTX-linked addresses ^[10][11], and whether explorers revise the tags HTX is disputing ^[15].