At the beginning of 2026, the crypto world staged a "trust crash" involving reputation. A leading exchange announced on January 4th that it would open FLOW deposits and withdrawals, but the delay extended to the 7th with no results, and it still hasn't provided a clear explanation. This is not just a typical technical delay but exposes deeper issues within the platform.

The incident is not complicated upon review. The FLOW mainnet was hacked some time ago, and the official response was relatively prompt, quickly identifying the fake coins and restarting the mainnet. The direct losses caused by the hacker were around a few million USD, which theoretically shouldn't have a significant market impact. The deposit and withdrawal recovery should have been straightforward, but reality deviated from expectations.

According to industry sources, that exchange allegedly had fake coin recharges during the hacking incident, creating bad debt of about $5 million. No one wants to admit or handle this money voluntarily, leading to an awkward situation: users' arbitrage opportunities were delayed for several days, and the deposit and withdrawal schedule became a paper tiger.

Here’s a core issue that must be clarified: the delay in deposits and withdrawals may seem minor, but it actually directly touches the platform’s most vulnerable point—user trust. Deposits and withdrawals involve fund management, arbitrage strategies, and market participation rhythm. Delays disrupt users’ plans. If the platform indeed has unresolved bad debt issues, the most honest approach would be to openly communicate, telling users "it takes time to resolve, the specific timeline is to be determined," maintaining transparency.

In contrast, the current approach—initially releasing a deposit and withdrawal schedule, then repeatedly delaying it, and finally offering no explanation—has a destructive power that even surpasses the hacker attack itself. Hackers are external risks that any platform can face, and users can understand that. But platform negligence and procrastination signal internal collapse, which is the real thing damaging market confidence.

This isn’t the first time such an incident has occurred in crypto history. Remember the "312" market period, when some exchanges cut off internet access to avoid risks, and their reputation plummeted afterward. Although this time it’s not as extreme, the damage mechanism is the same—users begin to doubt whether the platform is truly serious about their funds’ security.

Ultimately, whether an exchange can survive long-term is never about how well it can withstand hacking attacks, but whether it can uphold its promises to users during difficult times. The FLOW deposit and withdrawal incident, to some extent, is an open test of credibility.