At around 02:31 Beijing time, Bitget’s security system detected abnormal withdrawals from a hot wallet. According to the platform’s internal accounting, approximately $351.6 million in affected funds were involved. Blockchain analysts initially observed an outflow amount of about $180 million. The two sets of data differ and a full investigation report is still pending to clarify the details.
The platform’s official position:
✅ Cold wallets are completely safe, and user account balances have not been tampered with
✅ The User Protection Fund totals $464 million+, which the platform claims is sufficient to cover this loss
⚠️ Temporary suspension of withdrawals; deposit and trading functions remain open. The platform promises to release a complete root-cause report by September 26
Two thoughts:
1. The three-layer wallet architecture is still having issues, which shows that hot wallets remain the weakest point that is easiest for CEXs to be breached. Even established exchanges cannot guarantee absolute 100% security.
2. The “protection fund as a backstop” is only a platform commitment. Whether it is ultimately honored depends on subsequent actual implementation—so it shouldn’t be treated as a locked safe
Industry history has repeatedly confirmed through multiple exchange security incidents: controlling your own private keys (cold wallets) is the most fundamental risk control. CEXs are just temporary trading venues and are not suitable for holding large amounts of assets long-term
The platform’s official position:
✅ Cold wallets are completely safe, and user account balances have not been tampered with
✅ The User Protection Fund totals $464 million+, which the platform claims is sufficient to cover this loss
⚠️ Temporary suspension of withdrawals; deposit and trading functions remain open. The platform promises to release a complete root-cause report by September 26
Two thoughts:
1. The three-layer wallet architecture is still having issues, which shows that hot wallets remain the weakest point that is easiest for CEXs to be breached. Even established exchanges cannot guarantee absolute 100% security.
2. The “protection fund as a backstop” is only a platform commitment. Whether it is ultimately honored depends on subsequent actual implementation—so it shouldn’t be treated as a locked safe
Industry history has repeatedly confirmed through multiple exchange security incidents: controlling your own private keys (cold wallets) is the most fundamental risk control. CEXs are just temporary trading venues and are not suitable for holding large amounts of assets long-term