WazirX to Reveal 240,000 Wallets—Transparency or Legal Compliance?

WazirX exchange management announced on Thursday that they are going to reveal the addresses of over 2,40,000 users’ wallets in an affidavit to be filed at Singapore High Court. The management claimed that this was a step towards greater transparency after the Rs 2000 crore hack, however, the decision comes after a Singapore court categorically asked the management to reveal the wallet addresses.

In fact, the public reveal of WazirX wallet addresses was one of the conditions put by the Singapore Court that awarded a four-month moratorium to Zettai Pte Ltd, the parent entity of WazirX.

While the exchange claims this move was voluntary and part of its commitment to building trust, many users and big players in the crypto space remain skeptical. 

Source: Twitter

Critics have also argued that until now, there had not been any mention of such a vast number of wallet addresses, leaving users to question whether this is truly about transparency—or simply an attempt at legal compliance under mounting pressure.

One Twitter user expressed rage stating , “WazirX kept 235 million in 1 wallet and now they are saying the remaining 55% funds are spread across 240,000 wallets.”

He added, “This is some next level FRAUD & MANIPULATION.”

The numbers are staggering. WazirX claims to manage over 4.3 million users’ wallets, but the revelation that 240,000 wallet addresses still hold user balances has sparked concerns over the platform’s ability to manage such a complex system.

WazirX’s explanation revolves around the complexity and time required to sweep these wallets, citing high network fees as a reason for the delay. They stress the need for a cautious approach to avoid inflated fees and to ensure the optimal recovery of user funds. 

However, for many in the crypto community, this justification does little to restore confidence. Big players and users alike are demanding answers: Is this truly about network fees, or is it an excuse to mask mismanagement and delayed accountability?