In-Depth Investigation: ZachXBT's Investigation Points to Axiom — How Internal Tools Became a Channel for Insider Trading?

On February 26, 2026, on-chain investigator ZachXBT released his highly anticipated investigative report, targeting the cryptocurrency exchange Axiom Exchange. The report details multiple employees suspected of abusing internal support tools to access sensitive user information, tracking private wallet addresses over the long term and engaging in insider trading.

The incident quickly sparked industry-wide reflection on internal governance, user privacy protection, and the boundaries of “trust” as a core asset. This article will start from the facts, outline the event timeline, analyze various perspectives, and examine the potential structural impact on the crypto industry.

Event Overview: From Internal Permissions to Insider Trading Allegations

According to ZachXBT, the investigation was triggered by reports of misconduct within Axiom. The core of the investigation points to internal employees abusing their authority, turning internal support tools meant for customer service into instruments for surveillance and profit. Specifically, involved employees include senior business development (BD) staff Broox Bauer, his friend Gowno (Seb), and another BD employee Ryan (Ryucio). The main allegations are: these employees used internal dashboards, referral codes, wallet addresses, or user UIDs (user identifiers) to access sensitive information of any Axiom user and track their private wallet activity.

In a leaked video, Broox even claimed he could “find any information related to that person.” More concerning is that they not only monitored users but also compiled spreadsheets with private wallet addresses of several key opinion leaders (KOLs), intending to front-run trades based on unpublicized positions before KOLs announced their market moves, thus profiting from the information. Audio evidence shows that in a call in February 2026, Broox was still planning to use his permissions to help others quickly profit $200,000, indicating such behavior may have been ongoing since early 2025.

Background and Timeline: The Rapid Fall of a Star Project

Axiom is a cryptocurrency trading platform founded by Mist and Cal in 2024, with a meteoric rise. In winter 2025, it was selected for incubation by the renowned accelerator Y Combinator, regarded as an industry rising star, quickly becoming one of the most profitable companies in the space, generating over $390 million in revenue to date. Yet, such a star project fell into a severe trust crisis in a very short time.

• February 24, 2026: ZachXBT announced on social media that he would publish a major investigation on February 26, involving one of the “most profitable companies” in crypto engaging in long-term insider trading, sparking widespread speculation.
• February 26, 2026: ZachXBT officially released the report, revealing Axiom Exchange as the subject, with detailed evidence including recordings, screenshots, and on-chain address analysis.
• Same day, Axiom responded: The team quickly issued an official statement expressing “shock and disappointment” over employee misconduct, immediately revoked the involved employees’ access to internal tools, and promised to continue investigating and hold violators accountable.

Data and Structural Analysis: Predictive Markets as an Alternative “Public Opinion Map”

Before the event was publicly disclosed, prediction market Polymarket’s contract on “Which company will ZachXBT reveal?” had become an alternative battleground for capital, with data revealing interesting patterns.

By February 26, just before the event, the total trading volume on this contract approached $29 million, making it one of the platform’s hottest topics. The data clearly shows the market’s “doubt distribution”:

• Leading: Axiom with a 29% probability and over $5.65 million in trading volume, indicating market bets have already “voted” with their money toward the likely outcome.
• Close second: Meteora with 28%, forming a duopoly.
• Long tail: Pump.fun, Hyperliquid, and some top exchanges also appear, but with significantly lower probabilities.

This structured data suggests that the crypto market’s “collective intelligence” is using prediction markets as a new financial tool to pre-price industry events. While probabilities are not facts, tens of millions of dollars in real money amplify public sentiment, causing the suspected entities to suffer reputational damage even before the truth is revealed.

Public Opinion Analysis

Post-event, market opinions mainly focus on several dimensions:

• Condemnation of involved employees: This is the mainstream. Abuse of user trust and leveraging internal information for market “cheating” fundamentally contradicts the core principles of decentralization and transparency in crypto. Both KOLs and ordinary users could be on the other side of these insider trades, sparking widespread outrage.
• Questions about Axiom’s internal management: Despite Axiom’s swift and firm response, public doubts remain about its internal controls. How could a star project that just over a year old, with huge profits, allow such misconduct for months? Does this reveal a neglect of internal risk management and compliance culture amid pursuit of growth?
• Discussion of “leakage during investigation”: The leak of information during ZachXBT’s investigation made the Polymarket betting extremely intense. Some see this as efficient market information aggregation; others worry that such “public guessing” could be exploited as a new tool for manipulation and smear campaigns.

Industry Impact Analysis

ZachXBT’s exposure of Axiom extends far beyond a single platform:

1. Increased trust costs for users: The incident is a wake-up call that internal risks in centralized exchanges (CEXs) always exist. Users entrust assets and privacy to platforms, relying on robust internal governance. This event will prompt investors to scrutinize exchanges’ compliance history, security audits, and transparency more carefully.
2. Greater pressure for internal tool audits: Customer support, data analysis, and other backend tools used by exchanges will face stricter scrutiny. How to minimize employee access to sensitive user data, implement comprehensive logging, and monitor anomalies without degrading user experience will become essential challenges.
3. Heightened regulatory attention: Despite emphasizing decentralization, incidents involving insider trading via centralized permissions touch on traditional financial regulatory red lines. Authorities may use this as a basis to strengthen compliance requirements around data security and anti-insider trading measures for centralized crypto entities.
4. The synergy between on-chain detectives and prediction markets: ZachXBT’s influence coupled with Polymarket’s capital flows has pioneered a new “public oversight + market pricing” model. Future developments of similar events may be reshaped, with projects needing to manage not only investigations but also reputation and public opinion pressures driven by prediction markets.

Possible Evolution Scenarios

Based on current facts, the future of the Axiom incident could unfold in several ways:

• Scenario 1: Positive remediation (moderate probability)

Axiom’s co-founders conduct a thorough internal investigation, dismiss involved employees, bring in third-party security firms for comprehensive audits, and publicly commit to stricter internal permissions and transparency, even establishing a user compensation fund. If so, Axiom might turn this crisis into a “self-healing” opportunity, gradually rebuilding trust.

• Scenario 2: Status quo (higher probability)

As public attention wanes, Axiom’s response remains at “revoking permissions” and “continuing investigation,” with no substantial reforms or compensation plans announced. Users may forget and continue using the platform, but internal risks remain, posing larger future threats.

• Scenario 3: Regulatory intervention (lower but impactful probability)

If subsequent investigations reveal widespread harm or systemic management failures, authorities in the US or elsewhere might intervene. Regulatory actions could target not only Axiom but set precedents for mandatory internal governance standards across the industry, causing profound structural changes.

Conclusion

The Axiom incident acts as a prism, reflecting the deep cracks beneath the shiny surface of the crypto world: when “code is law” ideals meet the dark side of centralized power, trust becomes the most fragile and costly asset. ZachXBT’s investigation not only exposes a star project’s wounds but also forces the entire industry to confront systemic questions—where are the boundaries of exchange authority? How should user privacy be protected?

Axiom’s swift response is commendable, but the true test lies in the depth and transparency of subsequent reforms. For the crypto industry, every trust crisis is an opportunity for evolution: only when internal tool usage is strictly audited, employee permissions minimized, and user privacy prioritized can exchanges balance compliance and innovation. This is a question not only for Axiom but for every platform entrusted with user assets and data in this era.