Onchain analyst links $RIVER token squeeze to Bitget activity

According to the analysis, the scheme began with a seed wallet funded with 8 BNB from OKX exchange, which was then used to distribute funds via the Multicall3 contract across 362 wallets. Each of those wallets allegedly sent funds through nine consecutive transfers, creating a web of 2,418 linked addresses intended to blur the trail of incoming transactions.

The thread identifies two major withdrawal windows from Bitget that the author says were pivotal to supply control. On Dec. 5, about 2 million $RIVER tokens were allegedly withdrawn to five wallets when the token traded near $4. On Dec. 29, another 1 million tokens were withdrawn to two wallets, with roughly 80% of that tranche still held, according to the analysis.

In total, the author claims around $22 million worth of $RIVER was withdrawn from Bitget at an average price of about $4.12. At the price peak, the position was valued near $350 million, implying roughly a 15x return. The analysis says that nearly half of the token’s circulating supply ended up concentrated under the control of a single entity or closely linked set of wallets.

Price dynamics following the second withdrawal are central to the allegation. The analyst argues that removing supply from the market coincided with a sharp rally in $RIVER that unfolded alongside persistently negative funding rates and widespread short liquidations. In this framing, the squeeze in derivatives markets amplified spot gains as short positions were forced to close into rising prices.

The thread further claims that tokens were later returned to Bitget exchange after being held off-market, suggesting a cycle in which supply was withdrawn to tighten availability, price was driven higher through liquidation pressure, and tokens were eventually redeposited. The author says this pattern points either to facilitation by the exchange or to failures in monitoring and controls, while emphasizing that the conclusion is based on observed flows rather than internal records.

In practical terms, “exchange involvement” in such a scenario could range from direct links between accounts through shared KYC data, to indirect roles such as insufficient internal monitoring of clustered withdrawals and redeposits, preferential relationships with market makers, or gaps in controls designed to flag coordinated supply concentration. None of these have been proven in this case, and the allegations rely on public blockchain data and inference.

As of publication, Bitget has not commented publicly on the specific claims outlined in the thread. No response addressing the alleged $RIVER activity or the onchain analysis was found at the time of writing.