Bitget accounting revised the figure to $387.5 million｜Not a new theft and not an ETH-chain issue｜ETH at 2691—I'll watch first
My attitude is to put security incidents ahead of price speculation. Binance Square topic #BitgetSays$352MAffectedInHack cites an initial estimate of roughly $351.6 million; Bitget later, in an official progress update, updated the confirmed assets transferred into an attacker-controlled address to about $387.5 million, and stated that this upward revision comes from a more complete transaction classification—adding Zcash- and TRON-related assets that were previously missed. It does not mean a new round of unauthorized transfers occurred. The first announcement confirmed that abnormal transfers from some hot wallets were detected at 18:31 UTC on Sep 24; withdrawals were temporarily paused, while trading and deposits remained open. A subsequent announcement said the vulnerability had been identified and patched, and the incident was contained—but these are still the platform’s current self-reported statements, and external verification and a full incident report still need to wait.
I won’t mistakenly write “assets involved ETH” as an error on the Ethereum mainnet. The affected assets listed by the official include ETH, stablecoins, and multi-chain tokens, pointing to risk in exchange wallets and backend control; it does not prove that Ethereum consensus was compromised. Nor can you subtract the stated size of any protection fund from the loss numbers to assert when users can withdraw everything: fund availability, compensation rules, the progress of freezing and recovery, and the platform’s actual liquidity all require further evidence. Bitget said it would publish withdrawal status or timing before 04:00 UTC on Sep 26; that’s 12:00 noon in Beijing time—not a guarantee that withdrawals will definitely resume by noon. For anyone still with funds on that platform, verify only via the official announcements and in-account notifications first—don’t click private-message links about “accelerated withdrawals” or “recovered assets.”
Why does this matter to the crypto market? When a large exchange pauses withdrawals, in-balance funds and on-chain assets that can be transferred are temporarily not the same kind of liquidity. With ETH as a major settlement and collateral asset, traders may adjust margin, reduce cross-platform arbitrage, or move to venues with more stable liquidity. In the short term, price spreads and order-book depth may be amplified. But ETH on different platforms did not automatically lose transferability, and you can’t directly infer net market-wide selling from the incident amount. At the time of writing, Kraken’s ETH/USD was about $2690.64; over 24 hours it was high $2742.42 and low $2667.23. The price was in the lower half of the range then, and there isn’t enough evidence to attribute all this volatility to Bitget.
First, watch whether 2745 to 2750 can be reclaimed. Downside, watch 2667; if it breaks and a rebound fails, the longs’ plan would be invalidated.
If I were trading personally, I’m not participating right now. The direction is only preset spot-long, with a position size cap at 0.2% of total funds, no leverage. I’ll wait for Bitget’s official withdrawal plan to be published, and ensure deposits/withdrawals on the platform I use remain normal; then I would only enter if two 15-minute candles close above 2750, with a pullback that holds 2735 to 2750. First target: 2780 after halving; second target: 2820 fully exit. After entry, if a 15-minute candle closes below 2715, cut the remaining position by half; if price hits 2680, stop-loss and close. If ETH breaks below 2667 before entry, or if the official discloses new unconstrained transfers, the whole plan is canceled. If none of those triggers happen, I’ll continue holding—no treating limit orders as already filled.
#BitgetSays$352MAffectedInHack #ETH
The above is only my personal market observation and does not constitute investment advice.
My attitude is to put security incidents ahead of price speculation. Binance Square topic #BitgetSays$352MAffectedInHack cites an initial estimate of roughly $351.6 million; Bitget later, in an official progress update, updated the confirmed assets transferred into an attacker-controlled address to about $387.5 million, and stated that this upward revision comes from a more complete transaction classification—adding Zcash- and TRON-related assets that were previously missed. It does not mean a new round of unauthorized transfers occurred. The first announcement confirmed that abnormal transfers from some hot wallets were detected at 18:31 UTC on Sep 24; withdrawals were temporarily paused, while trading and deposits remained open. A subsequent announcement said the vulnerability had been identified and patched, and the incident was contained—but these are still the platform’s current self-reported statements, and external verification and a full incident report still need to wait.
I won’t mistakenly write “assets involved ETH” as an error on the Ethereum mainnet. The affected assets listed by the official include ETH, stablecoins, and multi-chain tokens, pointing to risk in exchange wallets and backend control; it does not prove that Ethereum consensus was compromised. Nor can you subtract the stated size of any protection fund from the loss numbers to assert when users can withdraw everything: fund availability, compensation rules, the progress of freezing and recovery, and the platform’s actual liquidity all require further evidence. Bitget said it would publish withdrawal status or timing before 04:00 UTC on Sep 26; that’s 12:00 noon in Beijing time—not a guarantee that withdrawals will definitely resume by noon. For anyone still with funds on that platform, verify only via the official announcements and in-account notifications first—don’t click private-message links about “accelerated withdrawals” or “recovered assets.”
Why does this matter to the crypto market? When a large exchange pauses withdrawals, in-balance funds and on-chain assets that can be transferred are temporarily not the same kind of liquidity. With ETH as a major settlement and collateral asset, traders may adjust margin, reduce cross-platform arbitrage, or move to venues with more stable liquidity. In the short term, price spreads and order-book depth may be amplified. But ETH on different platforms did not automatically lose transferability, and you can’t directly infer net market-wide selling from the incident amount. At the time of writing, Kraken’s ETH/USD was about $2690.64; over 24 hours it was high $2742.42 and low $2667.23. The price was in the lower half of the range then, and there isn’t enough evidence to attribute all this volatility to Bitget.
First, watch whether 2745 to 2750 can be reclaimed. Downside, watch 2667; if it breaks and a rebound fails, the longs’ plan would be invalidated.
If I were trading personally, I’m not participating right now. The direction is only preset spot-long, with a position size cap at 0.2% of total funds, no leverage. I’ll wait for Bitget’s official withdrawal plan to be published, and ensure deposits/withdrawals on the platform I use remain normal; then I would only enter if two 15-minute candles close above 2750, with a pullback that holds 2735 to 2750. First target: 2780 after halving; second target: 2820 fully exit. After entry, if a 15-minute candle closes below 2715, cut the remaining position by half; if price hits 2680, stop-loss and close. If ETH breaks below 2667 before entry, or if the official discloses new unconstrained transfers, the whole plan is canceled. If none of those triggers happen, I’ll continue holding—no treating limit orders as already filled.
#BitgetSays$352MAffectedInHack #ETH
The above is only my personal market observation and does not constitute investment advice.
