ZachXBT details axiom insider trading allegations against senior exchange employee

Allegations emerge against senior Axiom Exchange staffer

Fresh claims of misconduct have intensified scrutiny around axiom insider trading as questions mount over data access, user privacy and trading behavior on major crypto platforms.

Blockchain investigator ZachXBT has accused a senior employee at onchain trading platform Axiom Exchange of abusing privileged access to internal tools to monitor user activity and private wallets. According to his account, the staffer then allegedly used this information to trade memecoins based on non-public data.

The allegations surfaced just two days after trading firm Jane Street was separately accused of insider trading linked to the collapse of Terra in 2021. However, the two cases are unrelated, even if they underscore mounting concerns around market integrity in crypto.

In a detailed thread on X, ZachXBT named Broox Bauer, a New York-based senior business development employee at Axiom, as the person allegedly responsible. He claimed Bauer used internal dashboards to pull sensitive user information, including linked wallet addresses, and shared that data with a small group tracking trades by prominent crypto influencers.

Axiom responds to data misuse claims

Axiom, founded in 2024 by Mist and Cal and part of Y Combinator‘s Winter 2025 cohort, has generated more than $390 million in revenue to date, according to ZachXBT. That said, the platform now faces serious questions about its internal controls and surveillance systems.

The investigator said he was formally retained to examine whether internal tools at Axiom were being misused, though he did not identify who commissioned the probe. Moreover, he emphasized that his findings so far are constrained by limited access to the company’s proprietary systems.

In audio clips shared within the X thread, a person said to be Bauer allegedly boasts that he can track “any Axiom user” by referral code, wallet address or UID and “find out anything to do with that person.” In the same recording, he describes starting with research on 10–20 wallets and then gradually increasing his activity “so it does not look that suspicious.”

Axiom said it was “shocked and disappointed” by the suggestion that a team member abused internal customer support tools. The company stressed that the alleged conduct conflicts with its stated commitment to user protection and platform integrity.

“We have removed access to these tools and will continue to investigate and hold the offending parties responsible,” Axiom said in a public statement. “This does not represent us as a team, we have always tried to put the user first. We’ll share updates on our twitter as we learn more.”

How internal data was allegedly weaponized

According to ZachXBT, Bauer shared screenshots in April 2025 and August 2025 that appeared to show private wallet data tied to specific traders, including connected addresses and registration details. The material suggested that the internal dashboards exposed granular user profiles capable of linking identities to onchain activity.

He further claimed that Bauer and associates compiled wallet addresses for multiple crypto key opinion leaders, or KOLs, in a shared Google Sheet. The spreadsheet allegedly relied on data pulled directly from Axiom’s internal analytics tools, raising concerns about a broader crypto wallet data leak risk and systemic privacy weaknesses.

Several individuals whose wallets were referenced in the leaked material independently confirmed that the information matched their own address details, according to ZachXBT. However, he stopped short of saying that every connection was verified, noting the difficulty of conclusively tying pseudonymous activity to real-world identities.

The alleged trading approach centered on influencers known for quietly building large positions in new memecoins before promoting those tokens publicly. By pinpointing previously undisclosed wallets, the group could, in theory, track accumulation patterns and position itself in advance of anticipated price moves.

In this context, the axiom insider trading accusations hinge on whether internal user data was used to front-run such trades. If proven, that behavior could strengthen the case that onchain data misuse investigation efforts need to expand across the sector.

Limits of onchain evidence and exchange records

ZachXBT said he identified what he believes to be Bauer’s primary wallet and then mapped related addresses, tracing how funds moved through the ecosystem. He noted that some assets flowed to multiple deposit addresses on centralized exchanges, which may hold further evidence.

However, he cautioned that without direct access to Axiom’s internal logs, it is difficult to isolate high-confidence examples of insider trading based solely on blockchain records. Moreover, onchain analysis can illuminate suspicious patterns but cannot always prove a trader’s intent or access to non-public data.

The investigator argued that comprehensive answers will likely require coordinated review of internal user access logs, support dashboards and trading records at Axiom. That said, any such review would depend on cooperation from the company and, potentially, involvement from regulators or law enforcement.

Polymarket speculation and wider industry scrutiny

The allegations emerged amid rising scrutiny of trading practices across the crypto sector. Earlier in the week, a widely watched Polymarket prediction market tracking the identity of the firm at the center of the investigation shifted sharply toward Axiom, generating more than $30 million in volume.

Solana-based liquidity platform Meteora was initially the favorite, with about 43% odds, while Axiom, Pump.fun, Jupiter and MEXC trailed at lower probabilities. As sentiment evolved, traders reassessed the polymarket axiom betting landscape in real time based on new information.

As of European morning hours Thursday, those odds had flipped, with Axiom emerging as the frontrunner at 35%, followed by Meteora at 26% and an “others” category at 15%. However, these markets simply price collective expectations and do not constitute evidence regarding the underlying investigation.

Analysts note that the case underscores growing trading practices scrutiny crypto platforms face as they scale. Prediction markets and social media can amplify controversy rapidly, yet they rarely offer the detailed documentation regulators demand.

While prediction market odds and onchain sleuthing provide clues, they cannot substitute for a formal inquiry supported by internal records and, where relevant, legal discovery. For now, the Axiom episode highlights how quickly confidence can erode when questions arise over data handling and staff conduct.

As investigations continue, the Axiom case has become a test of how emerging onchain platforms handle allegations of internal misconduct, data misuse and potential market abuse. The outcome may shape user trust, regulatory expectations and risk controls across the broader crypto trading ecosystem.