The Floki protocol and Bitget crypto exchange have found themselves in a head-on collision over allegations of market manipulation. At the heart of this debacle is the mysterious TokenFi (TOKEN), a reward token that Floki recently introduced. Each side has pointed fingers at the other, using social media platforms and blog posts as battlefields.
According to a social media post from Floki dated October 31, Bitget allegedly violated a preliminary agreement to list the token seven days after its official launch. Floki says Bitget went ahead and listed TokenFi before its intended launch time, calling the act a “fake token” listing. Meanwhile, Bitget refutes these accusations, claiming that Floki itself is “suspected of market manipulation by maliciously controlling the initial liquidity.”
Disagreement over pre-launch listing and initial liquidity
Before delving into the specifics of this fractious affair, it’s crucial to understand the timeline. On October 18, the Floki team submitted a proposal to their decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) to initiate a staking program featuring TokenFi as a reward token. Besides targeting an undisclosed trillion-dollar industry, the proposal kept several details under wraps, including the token name and its actual purpose. The Floki team advised all centralized exchanges not to list TokenFi until at least seven days post-launch, abiding by the DAO’s governance rules.
Nevertheless, Bitget appears to have skipped the waiting period. Instead of abiding by the seven-day timeline, Bitget listed TokenFi before its official launch. Consequently, Floki sent out investor warnings on October 26 regarding unauthorized token listings, though Bitget was not specifically named. According to Coincodex data, TokenFi was finally launched on October 28 with an initial price of $0.00005011, skyrocketing shortly after to $0.005850—a gain of 11,574%. At the time of reporting, its price escalated further to $0.006053 per coin.
Moreover, Floki claims that Bitget’s premature listing led to a $20 million liability for the exchange. Bitget purportedly found themselves unable to process withdrawals since they listed a token they did not possess. Floki adds that Bitget then attempted to purchase TOKEN at a 90% discount from the TokenFi treasury, an offer that was flatly refused. Bitget, however, released a delisting statement in retaliation, citing reasons that included “significant price fluctuations” and “an opaque token economy.”
Bitget, however, tells a different story. They argue that Floki provided only $2,000 worth of TOKEN for initial liquidity, creating suspicions of market manipulation. Additionally, the exchange has offered to buy back TOKEN from its customers, covering any losses at peak price levels before delisting. Nonetheless, this means that investors will not experience any appreciation of TOKEN post-delisting.
The friction between the two entities raises several questions about governance, transparency, and accountability in the rapidly evolving crypto industry. While both parties are embroiled in this dispute, it remains to be seen what repercussions this will have on TokenFi’s future and the reputation of both Floki and Bitget. Although each claims to be in the right, the facts remain obscured by a haze of social media posts and blog statements.