coindcx

CoinDCX has now put a number on its TRON outflow: 15.99M USDT, lost from an old wallet it had called retired. Tether froze 2.21M of it. That is 13.8%.

On Oct 21 at 23:35 UTC+8, the old address TQKJQ sent 15,819,002 USDT in one transfer to a new wallet, which also took about 172,000 USDT from 39 smaller addresses. By 11:22 UTC+8 on Oct 22 that wallet had sent everything on to six addresses.

Tether blacklisted nine linked addresses at 06:45 UTC+8 on Oct 23, about 19 hours after the first wallet was empty. Those nine hold 2,212,850 USDT. By our math, about 13.78M, or 86.2%, had already moved on.

In a blog post on Oct 25, CoinDCX said the loss hit "old, deprecated wallet infrastructure which had unknown vulnerabilities", that its sweeping service had failed for a period, and that it absorbed the loss. It says customer balances are fully accounted for.

On-chain records read by CryptoWatchDesk show the same old address forwarding USDT as late as May 2026.

A freeze only catches what is still sitting still. Only deposit to the address your exchange app shows you today, never to one saved from before.

$USDT
#CoinDCX #Tether
NFA. DYOR.

🔴 CoinDCX Confirms $16M Loss From Its "Retired" Wallets

India's largest crypto exchange has finally put a number on it: $15.99M in $USDT drained on October 21 from legacy wallet infrastructure it says was retired after its July 2025 hack.

Why this admission matters: CoinDCX first denied a new breach. On-chain investigators led by ZachXBT then showed the "retired" address had still been sweeping user deposits as recently as May 2026. Only now, in a blog post shared Sunday, has the exchange confirmed the exact loss, saying it absorbed the cost and that customer deposits were credited and trading was unaffected.

The lesson for every exchange user is blunt: on a key-based chain, a "retired" wallet is not switched off. The key still works. If the sweep fails, funds pile up exactly where attackers already know to look.

⚠️ Honest risk: CoinDCX insists user funds are safe, but independent investigators dispute its account and no forensic report has been published. Until one appears, treat any "legacy wallet" explanation as unverified.

🔑 for self-custody, 🏦 for exchange trust. Which side are you on?

📌 Sharing personal opinions only, not financial advice or a recommendation to buy/sell. Crypto is highly risky; DYOR and you are solely responsible. No coin promotion.

#CoinDCX #CryptoSecurity #Crypto #Binance

$16 million in flagged outflows—and a denial. That makes me pause. 😬

Blockchain sleuths flagged suspicious outflows from addresses linked to CoinDCX, India’s largest exchange. CoinDCX denies its active wallets were hacked.

The distinction matters: suspicious transfers aren’t proof of a hack, but a denial alone doesn’t explain the movements. 🔍

I’d want a clear explanation before drawing conclusions. What would reassure you more: a wallet-by-wallet breakdown or an independent review?

#CoinDCX #CryptoSecurity #Blockchain

🚨 $16M $USDT Outflow: A Crypto Security Wake-Up Call?

Around $16M in USDT moved from wallets linked to CoinDCX, raising questions about wallet security and transaction monitoring.

CoinDCX says the issue involved old wallets and that customer funds remain safe.

How do you view this incident—as a warning for exchanges or a reminder to improve wallet management?

What's your view? Share your thoughts in the comments below. 👇

#CryptoSecurity #USDT #CoinDCX #Blockchain #CryptoNews

🚨 $COINDCX DENIES NEW BREACH, RECALLS JULY 2025 COMPROMISED WALLETS! 📊

📌 CoinDCX’s statement draws a clear line between historic wallet compromise and today’s on‑chain chatter. The compromised addresses, first hit in July 2025, continue to move assets, but the exchange stresses no fresh intrusion into its platform. 🦈 This distinction helps dampen panic‑driven sell pressure that often follows ambiguous blockchain spikes.

🔍 Traders should watch for any liquidity sweeps triggered by these legacy wallets, yet the core risk remains confined to the original breach vector. Maintaining 2FA and regular account audits stays prudent. 💡 How are you adjusting your security posture in light of this clarification? 👇

⚠️ Not financial advice. Always manage your risk. 🛡️

🏷️ #COINDCX #Security #Exchange #Crypto

🔥 💎

🚨 $16M MOVED FROM COINDCX-LINKED WALLETS — THE BIGGER WARNING IS WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THEY WERE RETIRED

CoinDCX initially rejected claims of a new hack
But on-chain investigators traced nearly $16M moving from wallets linked to the exchange
Here's the contradiction 👀

$BTC

CoinDCX said those addresses had been retired after its 2025 breach
Yet blockchain researchers found evidence of continued deposit activity
The exchange later acknowledged that its process for sweeping deposits from old addresses had failed during a period, causing operational losses
CoinDCX says affected customer deposits were credited and user funds remain safe
The real lesson isn't whether this qualifies as a second hack
It's that retiring an address doesn't automatically stop people from sending money to it
And a broken recovery process can leave funds exposed long after an incident

$ZEC

🔍 What I'd check
• Generate a fresh deposit address from the official exchange app
• Verify previous deposits were credited
• Report any discrepancy through official support
Security isn't just stopping the original breach
It's ensuring the old vulnerability can no longer affect users

#CoinDCX #CryptoSecurity #ExchangeRisk

🚨 CoinDCX Faces Questions Over Deposits Sent to Old Wallet Addresses

Crypto exchange CoinDCX says it has absorbed losses linked to deposits sent to outdated wallet addresses that could not be swept successfully. The exchange also says affected users have been credited.

However, blockchain investigator ZachXBT has alleged that $15.8 million in user deposits was unaccounted for. CoinDCX has not disclosed the amount of its losses, leaving important questions unanswered.

From a trader’s perspective, this situation highlights a risk that often gets overlooked: depositing funds is not just about choosing the right exchange. Wallet infrastructure, transaction handling, and transparent communication matter just as much.

When funds go missing or become inaccessible, users deserve clear explanations backed by verifiable information. Until more details emerge, it’s important to separate confirmed statements from allegations.

The bigger question is simple: how can exchanges strengthen deposit systems to prevent old wallet addresses from becoming a costly problem for users?

$IRYS $PTB $AKE

#CryptoSecurity #CoinDCX #blockchain #CryptoNews #Binance

CoinDCX's $16M mystery just got darker — the new accusations point at its own reserve list.

Salus CMO Darcy traced two addresses from CoinDCX's proof-of-reserves report sending funds to the hacker's address, noting the hot wallet kept distributing 15 TRX gas before and after what the exchange calls the breach: "Are you suggesting that the hackers were handling gas funding distribution for you?"

The flows reached OKX (~5.47M USDT), Binance (~2.02M) and Gate (~1.39M) — with some landing at Huione and Xinbi, Telegram marketplaces Elliptic ties to large-scale laundering.

ZachXBT pushed co-founder Gupta to admit a deposit address kept sweeping user funds ~10 months after the July 2025 hack. CoinDCX told Hindu BusinessLine its deposit-sweeping "failed for a particular period," causing "operational losses, which were absorbed by CoinDCX."

Counterweight: CoinDCX says no current wallet was touched and no user funds were lost — but researchers aren't courts.

If the hacker's wallet sat on CoinDCX's own reserve list, who answers for the $16M — the hacker, or the exchange?

#CryptoNews #CoinDCX #ExchangeHack #CryptoSecurity

I learned the term “retired wallet” today.

CoinDCX, India’s largest exchange. On October 21, about 15.99 million U flowed out of a batch of old deposit addresses on TRON. The first reaction was: it wasn’t a hack—these were old wallets left over from the July 2025 theft (about 44 million), and they hadn’t been used in ages.

Then ZachXBT checked the on-chain activity: one of those “old” addresses was still sweeping deposits into their hot wallet as recently as May 2026.

Once an address has been compromised, you should assume its private key is no longer yours. But nearly a year later, it was still receiving users’ funds and going through the sweeping process. You call that retired? That’s just nobody keeping an eye on it.

Later, the story changed: an automated sweeping service had malfunctioned, so funds kept piling up in the old addresses. The platform would absorb the loss, and users’ balances would remain unaffected. Tether froze about 2.2 million—just over 13%. According to on-chain posts, the rest had already been split up and sent to OKX, Binance, and Gate.

Credit where it’s due for covering the loss themselves. But the sequence says a lot: deny it first, get called out by on-chain evidence, then share the numbers. “It’s not a new vulnerability” translates to “we never fixed the old one.” That doesn’t make it sound better; it makes it look worse.

There’s just one thing retail users can do: don’t save exchange deposit addresses in your address book and reuse them. Copy the address again from the app before each deposit. You don’t know whether anyone is still monitoring the address you saved. Sometimes, they don’t know either.

#CoinDCX

CoinDCX admits that the wallet it claimed had “retired” after last year’s hack actually still held $15.99 million. What a joke. The supposedly “retired” wallet just moved somewhere else to keep bleeding people dry. Regulation and risk controls are a complete joke—everyone, stay alert.

#CoinDCX #REKT

In an update published today, CoinDCX said that 15.99 million $USDT had left an older operational wallet infrastructure, and that the company absorbed the loss without affecting customer balances or active wallets 🧾🔐 This is the platform’s statement, not independent verification. How do you assess updates like this? 🔎 #CoinDCX #CryptoSecurity

The exchange’s legacy wallet was breached; the biggest concern is that “users will foot the bill.”

According to reports, Indian crypto exchange CoinDCX said its legacy wallet infrastructure was attacked, resulting in losses of about 15.99 million USDT. The company said it would cover the losses itself and protect user funds, and that affected deposits had been credited as usual. Previously, Tether also froze an on-chain address linked to the incident.

How to read this: The company’s commitment to cover the losses may shore up trust in the short term, but the exposure of legacy infrastructure shows that hot wallets and outdated systems remain weak points for exchanges. Watch for disclosures about the attack vector, whether insurance or reserves will cover the losses, and whether similar platforms will accelerate wallet architecture upgrades. Don’t let “users suffered no losses” distract you from the system’s underlying vulnerabilities.

#CoinDCX #USDT #安全事件 #Exchange

The exchange’s old wallet was breached—the biggest fear is that “users will foot the bill.”

According to reports, Indian crypto exchange CoinDCX said its legacy wallet infrastructure was attacked, resulting in losses of approximately 15.99 million USDT. The company said it would absorb the losses itself and safeguard user funds, and that affected deposits had been credited as usual. Earlier, Tether also froze an on-chain address linked to the incident.

How to read this: The company covering the losses can shore up confidence in the short term, but the exposure of legacy infrastructure shows that hot wallets and outdated systems remain weak points for exchanges. Watch for whether the company discloses the attack vector, whether insurance or reserves cover the losses, and whether similar platforms accelerate wallet architecture upgrades. Don’t hear “users suffered no losses” and overlook the system debt.

#CoinDCX #USDT #安全事件 #Exchange

Spotted on Salus / TokenPost: Tether blacklisted 9 addresses linked to the CoinDCX incident and froze 2,212,850.3 USDT (about $2.21 million). The freeze took effect at 22:45:39 UTC on October 22.

Key facts: The abnormal transfers totaled about 15.99 million USDT, first flagged by investigator Darcy. Salus later raised concerns over fund transfers from proof-of-reserves (PoR) addresses and TRX distribution patterns. On-chain evidence gave Tether grounds to act. Most of the funds had already been moved out before the freeze, with some sent to exchange deposit addresses—the $2.21 million was the portion still held in those 9 addresses that was frozen.

The exchange had earlier attributed the outflows to an issue with old deposit addresses; the stablecoin issuer, meanwhile, exercised its power to freeze the funds directly.

$USDT #Tether #CoinDCX

A stablecoin issuer steps in to freeze funds, putting “on-chain reversibility” back in the spotlight.

According to reports, Tether has frozen nine addresses linked to the CoinDCX security incident, involving approximately 2.2129 million USDT. The measure took effect on October 23. The investigation was triggered by suspicious transfer activity; CoinDCX initially denied that there had been a breach, but later provided Tether with on-chain evidence.

How to read this: USDT’s ability to freeze funds is a double-edged sword for regulation and risk management. Victims may recover some of their losses, but it also reminds the market that stablecoins are not an absolutely neutral settlement layer. Watch for the conditions for any subsequent unfreezing, how fully the exchange discloses information, and whether similar addresses continue to proliferate.

#Tether #USDT #CoinDCX #Security

India’s largest exchange, CoinDCX, denies being hacked after on-chain sleuths flagged suspicious outflows from an address linked to it. The exchange insists its active wallet was not compromised; the incident is still unfolding. #CoinDCX #安全 #On-chain monitoring

India’s largest exchange CoinDCX exposed: about $15.8 million in USDT flowed out; “not hacked,” but admits to losses

📌 On October 21, a TRON address labeled as a CoinDCX deposit address/hot wallet transferred out about 15.819 million USDT. FlashRescue co-founder Darcy was the first to raise the alarm (Cointelegraph/CoinDesk).
📌 CoinDCX initially said these were old addresses created in January 2025 and abandoned after being stolen from in July 2025, and that they were unrelated to the platform.
📌 ZachXBT disputed this: the old deposit address TQKJQ continued to be used by a liquidity provider (LP) for about 10 months after the incident. As recently as April and May 2026, it was still consolidating user deposits into CoinDCX’s currently public hot wallet. He said about $15.8 million in user deposits had “not been tracked.”
📌 CoinDCX later changed its account: users were still depositing to the old address, and the consolidation process had been down for a period, resulting in “operational losses” that the platform would cover. Affected users have been credited, and cold wallets were unaffected. The amount and number of users affected were not disclosed (TokenPost/Cointelegraph). In July 2025, it was hacked for about $44 million.

【Commentary】
The real question isn’t “whether there was a new hack,” but why the compromised address was still receiving funds a year later and remained connected to an active hot wallet. The shift from “unrelated” to “we’ll cover it” points to gaps in internal reconciliation and address decommissioning procedures. On-chain investigators can spot anomalies before exchanges do—that’s the value of reserve transparency.

【Opportunities/Risks】
1️⃣ Risk: Always check the latest address in the app before making a deposit; don’t use an old address saved in your favorites. Once an exchange changes its address, the old one may no longer be under its control.
2️⃣ Watch whether CoinDCX discloses the loss amount and commissions a third-party audit, and whether Indian regulators get involved.
3️⃣ As security incidents at centralized platforms become more frequent, platforms with robust Proof of Reserves (PoR) and verifiable on-chain addresses have an advantage.
4️⃣ USDT has high liquidity on TRON, so anomalies like these are often first detected on TRON.

Do you regularly check whether the deposit address provided by your exchange has changed?

#CoinDCX #交易所安全 #ZachXBT #USDT
$TRX $BTC

For reference only; not investment advice.

【Market Flash】CoinDCX says it wasn’t hacked a second time, but an on-chain investigator accuses it of “lying”: the dispute isn’t about whether funds moved, but whether the address counts as “deprecated.”
Darcy flagged 15.99 million USDT and 5,783 TRX transferred out. The company initially said the attribution was incorrect, then changed its story, saying the address had been compromised in July 2025—while admitting that users were still depositing funds and that its fund-consolidation process had temporarily failed.
Why was a compromised address still receiving funds? Share your thoughts in the comments.
$USDT $TRX $BTC
#CoinDCX #交易所安全 #On-chainSleuth
(Source: Protos)
⚠️Risk warning: The above is shared for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Investing involves risk; please exercise caution.

CoinDCX is shrouded in security concerns! Users’ deposits have gone missing, and the wallet is a mystery!

Breaking! A security incident has hit CoinDCX, and users’ deposits have reportedly flowed into an undisclosed wallet! Even Onchain Lens spotted it—where did the money go? This is seriously unsettling! 🚨🔥 #CoinDCX #安全事件 #WalletMystery

India's leading crypto exchange is in a public dispute with ZachXBT over $16M that moved last night.

Timeline: on Oct 21 at 23:35 UTC+8, wallets linked to CoinDCX sent ~15.99M USDT and 5,783 TRX to a single Tron address, which then split the funds — some landing at Binance, OKX and Gate, per the transaction report. The flag came from Darcy's post at Salus.

CoinDCX CEO Sumit Gupta says this is not a new hack: the wallets were created in January 2025 and compromised in last year's $44M breach, and the hackers are just reusing old addresses. Users' funds are safe, trading is normal.

But ZachXBT pushed back: one flagged address, he says, kept sweeping user deposits and receiving gas funds as recently as May 2026, and sent funds to CoinDCX's current hot wallet — asking how a "dead" wallet handled user deposits.

Tape: BTC $81,877 (-2.0%/24h), ETH $2,403 (-2.6%/24h) — context only; no market move tied to this.

So why was a "compromised" July 2025 wallet still touching user deposits in May 2026? DYOR. $BTC #CryptoNews #CoinDCX #ExchangeSecurity #CryptoHacks