Talk:Bybit

Proposing a title change to "2025 Bybit hack."

@Jpatokal Could we update the page title to 2025 Bybit hack, similar to 2024 WazirX hack? Charlie (talk) 14:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I have no strong opinions on the matter, but the article has already been expanded to cover topics beyond the hack. Jpatokal (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm stressing this because most of the page references are about the recent hack, while the rest of the content remains mainly promotional, even after expansion. There have also been past attempt to publish this company's page, but they were rejected for being too promotional. I assure you that I can develop the page based on the 2024 WazirX hack. Charlie (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

WazirX ceased to exist after the hack; Bybit has, somewhat incredibly, survived so far. Let's give it some more time, if it collapses as a result of the hack then we can move it. Jpatokal (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Good idea, I agree with you on this. Charlie (talk) 06:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

@CharlieMehta @Jpatokal As a participant in the last AfD, I would support a move to a page about the hack. That's the only thing the company is notable for. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I believe an AfD would likely result in a page move so moving it to the topic it is notable for would be sufficient. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Bybit's official accounts as sources

@Greyfell: Your stance that we cannot source official statements from Bybit to Bybit's website or its official X account is absurd. This is perfectly compliant with WP:PRIMARY and you need to stop edit warring to delete it until consensus is established otherwise. Jpatokal (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, can you please check my edits? I added some stuff and was removed by the same person but I believe all sources that were used are also cited on Wikipedia multiple times. I believe he/she is biased and everything that is added is wrong as per Greyfell. Just need an idea because I have never seen such thing on Wikipedia that everything that is added to a page is reverted by the same user with the same reason every time. Or can you guide me where I can seek help. Please read my conversation with him on my talk page as well, thanks GreenPolly (talk) 05:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or advocacy. These sources were not reliable, they are plagiarized from PR. Wikipedia uses independent sources to determine which details are encyclopedically significant and which are not. I will also remind all users here that directly editing any article with a conflict of interest is discourages. If you are compensated for editing any article in any way, you must disclose this, per WP:PAID. Grayfell (talk) 07:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Greyfell on this one, the content you are adding is promotional and unencyclopedic. Jpatokal (talk) 12:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

ByBit legal entities need clarification

The article incorrectly states that ByBit is operated by ByBit Fintech Limited. ByBit is operated by about 15 companies worldwide, the whole company structure is a mess full of dissolved offshore companies. It would be of upmost importance to find reliable sources on who operates ByBit. While their ToS mentions "ByBit Technology Limited" in the .com domain, it needs further research as it might refer to a dissolved British Virgin Islands company, a company in Seychelles or a company in the United Arab Emirates. --Greenhat72 (talk) 06:50, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

As you say, reliable sources are needed. Please note that Wikipedia doesn't publish original research. Any interpretation of a primary source (especially legal documents) will need to come from a reliable source and not from a Wikipedia editor directly. Grayfell (talk) 09:07, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

SAT on Legal status

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Bybit - Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) press release			(regulator enforcement/settlement notice; factual and RS, but not an in-depth profile; limited CORPDEPTH/GNG value)	✘ No
Bybit - Gadgets360			(single-event news report on a fine; RS-useful for the claim, but limited depth)	✘ No
Bybit - Gadgets360 (penalty paid / registration)			(follow-up single-event report; limited depth)	✘ No
Bybit - The Japan Times			(topic-led reporting; may mention Bybit, but not a sustained profile; limited CORPDEPTH)	✘ No
Bybit - Japan FSA Weekly Review (No.443)			(regulator bulletin/roundup; RS for the fact of warning/notice, not an in-depth profile)	✘ No
Bybit - TheStreet (Japan blocks apps)			(single-event coverage; limited depth)	✘ No
Bybit - Finance Magnates (FSA warning)			(single-event report; industry outlet; limited depth)	✘ No
Bybit - The Wall Street Journal (offshore exchange access)			(topic-led reporting; may include Bybit as example; not an in-depth company profile)	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Belle Femme Emmo (talk) 05:44, 6 March 2026 (UTC)