The Mentougou incident is a far-reaching hacker case in the history of cryptocurrency, with the flow of funds closely monitored by the market. Based on this information, the core focus is on the dynamics of two capital flows: one is the asset distribution carried out by the entrusted party of the Mentougou exchange, and the other is the transfer of funds associated with addresses linked to the hacker suspect.

The funds managed by the Mentougou trustee are substantial, ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of bitcoins. The purpose is to compensate creditors. This large-scale, planned on-chain movement, although it may cause short-term price fluctuations due to market sell-off expectations, is essentially about returning assets to legitimate owners and resolving historical issues. The operation is relatively transparent, with clear cooperation with trading platforms, and is part of the judicial process.

In contrast, activities of addresses associated with the hacker are more covert and uncertain. Aleksey Bilyuchenko is accused of being the hacker behind Mentougou and linked to the illegal trading platform BTC-e. The movement of funds related to his addresses is more clandestine. Depositing bitcoins into “unknown trading platforms” is often seen as preparation for selling off or laundering funds through mixing services. Such behavior is typical of illicit fund transfers, aiming to cash out illegal gains and integrate them into legitimate financial systems, while actively avoiding regulation and on-chain tracking.

A key detail is that although Bilyuchenko himself is incarcerated, his associated entities continue to operate. This suggests that these assets may not be directly controlled by him personally but are managed by a larger network working in coordination. From 2024 to 2025, these addresses have continued to transfer small to medium amounts of bitcoin to trading platforms, a common “smurfing” strategy designed to avoid excessive attention from large transfers.

For the market, the trustee’s compensation is an expected and estimable selling pressure. Meanwhile, the potential sell-off from hacker addresses is an unpredictable variable. The remaining 3,000 BTC held by the hacker is like the Sword of Damocles hanging over the market, capable of being dumped at any time and causing sudden price shocks. Industry practitioners will continue to monitor these related addresses and track their final inflows into trading platforms, as compliant platforms cooperate with judicial authorities to freeze suspicious assets, which is also part of tracking and recovering illicit funds.

In summary, these are two parallel lines of the same historical event: one is the transparent, gradually closing judicial compensation process; the other is the flow of criminal assets still moving in the shadows, attempting to launder illegal gains. The latter will continue to test the compliance and risk control capabilities of the cryptocurrency industry.