Bitget Update Tracking Announcement｜Listing ZEC transparent deposit addresses does not mean funds have already been recovered｜Around 1522, I’ll focus on defense first
My stance is to look at custody risk first, then talk about a rebound. In a security incident announcement updated by Bitget on September 25, the total value of affected assets was revised from roughly $351.6 million previously to about $387.5 million. The announcement explains that the difference comes from additional accounting for affected assets, including Zcash and TRON, and it does not mean that new outflows of the same scale occurred again. The announcement also lists a ZEC deposit address controlled by the attacker, beginning with “t1.” This is a tracing clue published by the exchange; at present, I have not seen the announcement disclose the amount of ZEC loss for any single item, nor can you infer all fund flows from one address, and you absolutely can’t treat a flagged address as proof that the funds have already been recovered.
Here’s a technical boundary that’s easy to misread: Zcash’s “t” addresses are transparent addresses, and the transaction segment on-chain can be publicly verified. But the fact that a transparent address is visible doesn’t mean that all subsequent fund paths are visible, nor does it mean the platform can directly freeze native ZEC. Exchanges may restrict deposits/withdrawals and accounts on their own platforms, and cross-platform cooperation may also provide leads; ultimately, recovery still depends on where the funds went, who has control, and law-enforcement progress. The known facts here point to a custody security incident at the exchange—not to a breach of Zcash consensus or privacy protocols. Mixing the two easily leads to overestimating direct fundamental damage to the project, and also underestimating exchange deposit/withdrawal risks.
Bitget also published on September 26 a phased schedule for resuming withdrawals. It lists batches for BTC, ETH, USDT, and “other tokens,” but it does not specify a separate recovery time for ZEC. I will follow the platform’s subsequent announcements about ZEC deposits/withdrawals and the actual state of the pages, and I won’t treat the overall category dates as a firm commitment. In the market, for Kraken’s ZEC/USD, I found roughly $1,522.8, with a past 24-hour high of $1,623.99, a low of $1,513, and an opening around $1,555.59. Since the price is below the open and close to the low, risk appetite looks weak; but you can’t conclude that the entire drop was caused solely by the Bitget incident. If price returns above 1540 and holds, sell pressure might ease in the short term; if 1513 is broken, set aside speculation that “the bad news is already out.”
If I were trading it myself: I wouldn’t participate now. The only direction I would consider is spot long positions after confirmation, never topping up with high leverage just to test the bottom. Only if two consecutive full 15-minute candlesticks close above 1540, and the pullback holds without breaking 1535–1540, and the exchange’s deposit/withdrawal status has no new deterioration, would I use total funds of no more than 0.25% to try a position. Cut the size in half at 1560, and close the remaining position at 1590. After entering, if it falls back below 1520, cut the position in half first; if it drops to 1510, stop-loss and fully close. If I haven’t entered yet and price breaks below 1513, cancel the entire long setup. If the official disclosures reveal larger single-item ZEC losses, or if recovery continues to be delayed, or if the rebound can’t stand firmly above 1540, I would actively close the position—I won’t use “long-term bullishness” to replace risk control. The key isn’t guessing the absolute lowest point; it’s making sure every trade is backed by verifiable facts and has a clear exit trigger.
Source: Bitget’s September 25 updated security incident announcement; September 26 withdrawal resumption schedule; publicly available information on Zcash transparent addresses; Kraken ZEC/USD live quotes. #ZEC
The above is only my personal market observation and does not constitute investment advice.
My stance is to look at custody risk first, then talk about a rebound. In a security incident announcement updated by Bitget on September 25, the total value of affected assets was revised from roughly $351.6 million previously to about $387.5 million. The announcement explains that the difference comes from additional accounting for affected assets, including Zcash and TRON, and it does not mean that new outflows of the same scale occurred again. The announcement also lists a ZEC deposit address controlled by the attacker, beginning with “t1.” This is a tracing clue published by the exchange; at present, I have not seen the announcement disclose the amount of ZEC loss for any single item, nor can you infer all fund flows from one address, and you absolutely can’t treat a flagged address as proof that the funds have already been recovered.
Here’s a technical boundary that’s easy to misread: Zcash’s “t” addresses are transparent addresses, and the transaction segment on-chain can be publicly verified. But the fact that a transparent address is visible doesn’t mean that all subsequent fund paths are visible, nor does it mean the platform can directly freeze native ZEC. Exchanges may restrict deposits/withdrawals and accounts on their own platforms, and cross-platform cooperation may also provide leads; ultimately, recovery still depends on where the funds went, who has control, and law-enforcement progress. The known facts here point to a custody security incident at the exchange—not to a breach of Zcash consensus or privacy protocols. Mixing the two easily leads to overestimating direct fundamental damage to the project, and also underestimating exchange deposit/withdrawal risks.
Bitget also published on September 26 a phased schedule for resuming withdrawals. It lists batches for BTC, ETH, USDT, and “other tokens,” but it does not specify a separate recovery time for ZEC. I will follow the platform’s subsequent announcements about ZEC deposits/withdrawals and the actual state of the pages, and I won’t treat the overall category dates as a firm commitment. In the market, for Kraken’s ZEC/USD, I found roughly $1,522.8, with a past 24-hour high of $1,623.99, a low of $1,513, and an opening around $1,555.59. Since the price is below the open and close to the low, risk appetite looks weak; but you can’t conclude that the entire drop was caused solely by the Bitget incident. If price returns above 1540 and holds, sell pressure might ease in the short term; if 1513 is broken, set aside speculation that “the bad news is already out.”
If I were trading it myself: I wouldn’t participate now. The only direction I would consider is spot long positions after confirmation, never topping up with high leverage just to test the bottom. Only if two consecutive full 15-minute candlesticks close above 1540, and the pullback holds without breaking 1535–1540, and the exchange’s deposit/withdrawal status has no new deterioration, would I use total funds of no more than 0.25% to try a position. Cut the size in half at 1560, and close the remaining position at 1590. After entering, if it falls back below 1520, cut the position in half first; if it drops to 1510, stop-loss and fully close. If I haven’t entered yet and price breaks below 1513, cancel the entire long setup. If the official disclosures reveal larger single-item ZEC losses, or if recovery continues to be delayed, or if the rebound can’t stand firmly above 1540, I would actively close the position—I won’t use “long-term bullishness” to replace risk control. The key isn’t guessing the absolute lowest point; it’s making sure every trade is backed by verifiable facts and has a clear exit trigger.
Source: Bitget’s September 25 updated security incident announcement; September 26 withdrawal resumption schedule; publicly available information on Zcash transparent addresses; Kraken ZEC/USD live quotes. #ZEC
The above is only my personal market observation and does not constitute investment advice.
