Share
Subscribe to the AlphaWire Newsletter
Anticipation around the case built days before publication. On Feb. 23, 2026, blockchain investigator ZachXBT warned that a major report was coming, alleging insider trading tied to internal data abuse at one of crypto’s most profitable firms, before naming Axiom Exchange three days later.
ZachXBT alleges that Broox Bauer, a New York–based senior business development employee at Axiom, used internal tools to look up private wallet data linked to users. According to the investigation, those tools allowed searches by referral code, wallet address, or user ID.
1/ Meet @WheresBroox (Broox Bauer), one of the multiple @AxiomExchange employees allegedly abusing the lack of access controls for internal tools to lookup sensitive user details to insider trade by tracking private wallet activity since early 2025. pic.twitter.com/KwICQMJL1q
— ZachXBT (@zachxbt) February 26, 2026
In audio recordings shared by ZachXBT, Bauer is heard claiming he could track “any Axiom user” and learn “anything” about them, while describing how he initially reviewed 10 to 20 wallets at a time before gradually expanding the scope so the activity wouldn’t stand out.
3/ Broox is a current Axiom senior BD employee based in New York.
In the clip Broox states he can track any Axiom user via ref code, wallet, or UID and claims he can "find out anything to do with that person".
He also describe researching 10-20 wallets initially and slowly… pic.twitter.com/60rhcapkH6
— ZachXBT (@zachxbt) February 26, 2026
The report includes screenshots from Axiom’s internal dashboards dated April and August 2025. One image allegedly shows private wallets tied to a trader identified as “Jerry.” Another displays registration details and linked wallets for a user called “Monix.” In the same period, Bauer is accused of discussing wallet lookups related to traders active in the AURA memecoin.
4/ In April 2025, Broox shared a screenshot from an internal Axiom dashboard displaying private wallets for the trader 'Jerry'.
In August 2025, Broox sent a second image showing the registration and connected wallets for the trader 'Monix'.
In August 2025, Broox discussed… pic.twitter.com/onCOBhp7jH
— ZachXBT (@zachxbt) February 26, 2026
ZachXBT says a private group compiled wallet addresses for several crypto key opinion leaders in a shared Google Sheet. Multiple individuals named in the leaked material later confirmed that the wallet data attributed to them was accurate.
5/ The group created a Google Sheet compiling wallets for multiple KOL targets mapping out wallet addresses gathered from data obtained via the internal Axiom dashboard by Broox.
Multiple KOLs named on the sheet or in leaked screenshots were contacted and independently confirmed… pic.twitter.com/X9nx5uSMlA
— ZachXBT (@zachxbt) February 26, 2026
The investigation stops short of declaring confirmed insider trading, with ZachXBT noting that without access to Axiom’s internal logs, it remains difficult to match wallet lookups with trade timing at a level that would meet a high evidentiary bar.
Axiom, founded in 2024 by Mist and Cal and backed by Y Combinator’s Winter 2025 batch, has reported more than $390 million in revenue to date. After being contacted by ZachXBT, the company said it removed employee access to the tools in question and opened an internal review.
The company described itself as “shocked and disappointed” by the allegations and said the conduct didn’t reflect its values. Axiom added that it would share further updates as its investigation continues.

The allegations land as crypto trading platforms face growing scrutiny over how employee access is governed. ZachXBT argues that the breadth of data visible to business development staff at Axiom was unusually wide, covering full wallet lists, timestamps, transaction histories, and linked accounts.
Because Bauer is based in New York, ZachXBT suggests the case could fall under US jurisdiction if authorities decide to review it, though no charges have been announced.
For you as a user, the issue cuts past one platform. It highlights how internal visibility, when poorly controlled, can quietly reshape market fairness long before problems surface in public.
Share
