Wait, what?! The CEO said it was a false alarm, then three days later admitted the company had lost 15.99 million USDT 😂
At 11:35 p.m. on October 21, an old deposit address that had been retired long ago transferred out more than 15.81 million USDT. Including earlier transfers, around 15.99 million USDT in total was sent to the same address, then split up and moved to several major exchanges. The company affected was an Indian competitor. The address had already been exposed when it was hacked in July 2025, in an incident that cost around $44 million.
When the news broke the next day, the competitor’s CEO personally replied, saying the wallet hadn’t been compromised and that hackers were making a fuss over an old address. It sounded like a false alarm. Four minutes later, the company’s official account issued a statement saying the reports were misleading. But within hours, an on-chain investigator dug up the transaction records: the address had continued to be used for 10 months after the incident, and in April and May 2026, user deposits were still being swept into the company’s current hot wallet. The CEO immediately softened his tone, saying the matter was under investigation and users wouldn’t lose any money.
On October 25, the company finally put numbers in an official blog post: its automated deposit-sweeping service had failed for a period of time, leaving user deposits to pile up in the old address. The company ended up losing 15.99 million USDT and said it would cover the loss itself. Those funds had accumulated gradually in 88 transactions from January to March, then sat there for 205 days without anyone noticing. The two incidents over 15 months add up to nearly $60 million.
The company is covering the loss, so users weren’t harmed—that’s at least a responsible move. But the fact that a retired address could quietly accumulate 15.99 million, and the boss’s first reaction was still to say nothing was wrong, is enough to make anyone who’s used this company nervous.
Newbies: watch and learn more, and don’t rush into trading. If you buy crypto, stick to $BTC .
At 11:35 p.m. on October 21, an old deposit address that had been retired long ago transferred out more than 15.81 million USDT. Including earlier transfers, around 15.99 million USDT in total was sent to the same address, then split up and moved to several major exchanges. The company affected was an Indian competitor. The address had already been exposed when it was hacked in July 2025, in an incident that cost around $44 million.
When the news broke the next day, the competitor’s CEO personally replied, saying the wallet hadn’t been compromised and that hackers were making a fuss over an old address. It sounded like a false alarm. Four minutes later, the company’s official account issued a statement saying the reports were misleading. But within hours, an on-chain investigator dug up the transaction records: the address had continued to be used for 10 months after the incident, and in April and May 2026, user deposits were still being swept into the company’s current hot wallet. The CEO immediately softened his tone, saying the matter was under investigation and users wouldn’t lose any money.
On October 25, the company finally put numbers in an official blog post: its automated deposit-sweeping service had failed for a period of time, leaving user deposits to pile up in the old address. The company ended up losing 15.99 million USDT and said it would cover the loss itself. Those funds had accumulated gradually in 88 transactions from January to March, then sat there for 205 days without anyone noticing. The two incidents over 15 months add up to nearly $60 million.
The company is covering the loss, so users weren’t harmed—that’s at least a responsible move. But the fact that a retired address could quietly accumulate 15.99 million, and the boss’s first reaction was still to say nothing was wrong, is enough to make anyone who’s used this company nervous.
Newbies: watch and learn more, and don’t rush into trading. If you buy crypto, stick to $BTC .
