đ° Seven major cryptocurrencies were attackedâwhy did cold wallets remain safe?
Bitget CEO Gracy Chen confirmed that the hackersâ attack affected seven types of assets, including ETH, XRP, BNB, AVAX, USDT, and USDC. Among them, the largest loss was on the single XRP Ledger chain. The attack involved seven public chains, such as Ethereum, XRP Ledger, Arbitrum, and Avalanche, but all cold wallets have been confirmed as secure. Bitget has contacted the respective chains to freeze the hackersâ wallets, and some of the chains have already carried out the action.
Why is this news important?
At first glance, this attack appears random, hitting multiple mainstream coins and public chains. Yet no cold wallet was harmed, exposing a structural weakness in todayâs Web3 defense system. How could hackers easily wipe out hot-wallet assets on-chain, but not touch their reserves? The answer lies in the dual-track design of âhot wallets vs. cold walletsââthe former relies on centralized custody, while the latter uses offline storage. This suggests that the attack has shifted from a simple technical intrusion to a more targeted âthe rich get richerâ pattern, specifically hunting the liquidity of top-tier projects.
Market impact
In the short term, ETH and XRP may face pressure due to technical concerns, but in the long run, cold wallets remaining unharmed indicates that the industryâs overall resilience to risk has not been compromised. More importantly, this incident reinforces the concept of âdecentralized reserves,â which may push exchanges to accelerate increases in the proportion of cold wallets. Historical reference: after the 2016 Binance API vulnerability incident, the industry truly started prioritizing hot/cold wallet isolation. This event may trigger another round of security competition. But what does it imply? The size of exchange insurance funds may be re-evaluated.
đĄ This incident is neutral to bearish for ETH at $2,673.56, because technological uncertainty will weaken off-exchange capitalâs willingness to enter. If, over the next two weeks, there are larger-scale hot-wallet theft incidents, this assessment would be invalid.
ăThis article has no sponsorship from any project, and the author does not hold any of the assets mentionedă
Source: Binance Square
$BTC $ETH #BTC #ETH
â ď¸ Not investment advice; predictions are for reference only
$AVAX
Bitget CEO Gracy Chen confirmed that the hackersâ attack affected seven types of assets, including ETH, XRP, BNB, AVAX, USDT, and USDC. Among them, the largest loss was on the single XRP Ledger chain. The attack involved seven public chains, such as Ethereum, XRP Ledger, Arbitrum, and Avalanche, but all cold wallets have been confirmed as secure. Bitget has contacted the respective chains to freeze the hackersâ wallets, and some of the chains have already carried out the action.
Why is this news important?
At first glance, this attack appears random, hitting multiple mainstream coins and public chains. Yet no cold wallet was harmed, exposing a structural weakness in todayâs Web3 defense system. How could hackers easily wipe out hot-wallet assets on-chain, but not touch their reserves? The answer lies in the dual-track design of âhot wallets vs. cold walletsââthe former relies on centralized custody, while the latter uses offline storage. This suggests that the attack has shifted from a simple technical intrusion to a more targeted âthe rich get richerâ pattern, specifically hunting the liquidity of top-tier projects.
Market impact
In the short term, ETH and XRP may face pressure due to technical concerns, but in the long run, cold wallets remaining unharmed indicates that the industryâs overall resilience to risk has not been compromised. More importantly, this incident reinforces the concept of âdecentralized reserves,â which may push exchanges to accelerate increases in the proportion of cold wallets. Historical reference: after the 2016 Binance API vulnerability incident, the industry truly started prioritizing hot/cold wallet isolation. This event may trigger another round of security competition. But what does it imply? The size of exchange insurance funds may be re-evaluated.
đĄ This incident is neutral to bearish for ETH at $2,673.56, because technological uncertainty will weaken off-exchange capitalâs willingness to enter. If, over the next two weeks, there are larger-scale hot-wallet theft incidents, this assessment would be invalid.
ăThis article has no sponsorship from any project, and the author does not hold any of the assets mentionedă
Source: Binance Square
$BTC $ETH #BTC #ETH
â ď¸ Not investment advice; predictions are for reference only
$AVAX
