circletetherfreezebitgethackerwallet

What happened & timeline of events
🦹The Hacker has entered Bitget exchange draining it for $385M 💰 in various crypto currencies.
⏳The first "suspicious" transfer was noticed 3 HOURS BEFORE Bitget actualy reacted
They have been alerted more times during this 3 hours ,one time by Bubblemaps who saw huge amounts being drained to a new wallet and split into more places right after - which is well known tackics hackers use.
🤯 There was NO 🙂‍↔️ private keys exploit, the whole heist happened because Bitget's system itself ALLOWED it to happened.
👉 3hours later.... They finally reacted and stoped the withdrawals.
🔶Big exchanges reacted to the news and offered help, among them was our very own @CZ showing it's full support and offering help to Bitget in this troubled times . Other exchanges offered help also, showing sympathy and crypto communities standing together in the face of unfortunate events 🌪️
💱 Tether and Circle have jumped in to help, promising they I'll freeze the hackers known address stablecoins . Now this guest as noble as it looks opened a whole avalanche 🛘 of questions
👉 It Tether and Circle can Freeze someone's address, what's stoping them from freezing our assets if some bank or organisation SKS them ? The very nature of crypto is being put under a big question ❓ Decentralisation or Not quite ?
This spiced up even more when Bitget's CEO Gracy Chan reached out to Thor Chain - the chain that stands by decentralisation stronger than many others Also, one of the most attacked and blamed for "not helping " in many cases like this one Thor Chain makes their point - we are truly decentralised, we can't just pause all withdrawals for all users cause it's convenient Also have you asked Bitcoin, Etherium , BNB CHAIN to stop their withdrawals too - cause most of the money is going through those chains?
Making a hard point on decentralisation and the nature of crypto , Thor Chain ⛓️ Takes their stand here. Users are devided - half say great for Thor, decentralisation should always be respected , that's why it exists , while the other half say
Thor Chain uses double standards - when they were hacked they did stoped withdrawals for 13h so it is possible.
Thor Chain ⛓️ sais - ask $BTC , $ETH and other chains to stop withdrawals, why are we always attacked ?
What is your take ?
Decentralisation on demand or always ?
#Hack
#CircleTetherFreezeBitgetHackerWallet

#CircleTetherFreezeBitgetHackerWallet
🌐 Asset Freeze: Circle & Tether Blacklist Bitget Hacker’s WalletIn a swift security response, major stablecoin issuers Circle and Tether have blacklisted a digital wallet directly tied to the recent security breach Bitget exchange. Together, the companies have successfully frozen roughly$318,000 worth of liquidity, showcasing the powerful clawback capabilities built into modern stablecoins.📊 Key DevelopmentsThe Frozen Assets: The blacklisted address (labeled "Bitget Exploiter 8" on Etherscan) contained 99,990 USDC and 218,023 USDT.Stablecoin Controls:Both Circle and Tether enacted their issuer-level controls to lock down these specific tokens, rendering them completely unmovable.The Unreachable Stash:Despite the freeze, the attacker still holds massive reserves beyond control, including over 63,000 native Ethereum (ETH).Cross-Chain Movement: Reports indicate the exploiter has also initiated massive movements of stolen XRP, shifting roughly $83 million across various holding addresses.🎯 Market ImplicationsThis incident highlights a fundamental structural difference in decentralized finance: stablecoins (USDC/USDT) possess central smart-contract restrictions allowing issuers to block wallets, whereas native assets like ETH do not have a single entity with the power to freeze funds. While the frozen amount is a small fraction of the total stolen bounty, it limits the attacker’s immediate off-ramp capabilities and underscores why hackers rapidly swap stablecoins into native assets or privacy coins.👀 Key Factors to Track NextOngoing on-chain movement of the stolen ETH and remaining XRP holdings.Potential hacker attempts to deposit funds into centralized exchanges using mixers.Additional blacklisting requests by law enforcement or cybersecurity firms.Official recovery timelines and system upgradeupdatesfromtheBitgetteam.How do you view this balance between centralization and decentralization? Is the ability to freeze assets a necessary security net, or does it go against the true ethos of crypto?
$SUPER $GRAM $PYTH

The recent Bitget security incident has sparked another major discussion about crypto security and stablecoin control.
Circle and Tether reportedly blacklisted a wallet connected to the exploit, freezing approximately $318,000 worth of USDC and USDT.
However, this represents only a small portion of the affected assets. A significant amount was reportedly converted into ETH, which cannot be directly frozen by USDC or USDT issuers.
This creates an interesting contrast.
Stablecoins: issuers can intervene and freeze specific tokens.
Native crypto assets: assets such as ETH operate without a centralized issuer capable of freezing the coins themselves.
The incident therefore raises a broader question for the crypto industry:
Does the ability to freeze stolen stablecoins provide an important security layer, or does it introduce a trade-off with the permissionless nature of cryptocurrency?
The investigation and movement of the affected funds remain an evolving story.
What is your view?
$USDC $USDT
#CircleTetherFreezeBitgetHackerWallet #Bitget

#circletetherfreezebitgethackerwallet
Bitget Hack Explained: How $387.5M Was Stolen Without Private Keys
Bitget is dealing with one of the largest crypto security incidents of 2026 after attackers moved approximately $387.5 million from parts of the exchange’s hot and warm wallet infrastructure.
What makes the incident unusual is that the attackers reportedly did not steal private keys.
Bitget detected unauthorized transfers at 18:31 UTC on September 24, initially estimating the affected assets at about $351.6 million. The figure was later raised to $387.5 million after on-chain investigators identified additional assets involving networks including Zcash and TRON.
The attack reportedly targeted the backend
According to Bitget CEO Gracy Chen, investigators ruled out a direct private-key compromise.
Instead, the attacker reportedly compromised a critical backend system within Bitget's wallet infrastructure and spoofed transaction data. The altered information was then processed by the exchange's normal authorization system, causing transactions to appear legitimate to the signing process.
That distinction is important.
The incident was not simply a case of someone obtaining a private key and draining a wallet. The reported attack targeted the infrastructure that tells the wallet system what transaction it is actually approving.
Bitget said its cold wallets were not affected, while the investigation continued with assistance from cybersecurity firms including Mandiant and SlowMist.
Where did the money go?
On-chain trackers identified large quantities of XRP, ETH, USDT, USDC and other assets among the transferred funds. Bitget's later revision added assets that were not included in its initial estimate.
The attackers also began converting portions of the stolen assets into other cryptocurrencies, making recovery more difficult.
Circle and Tether were able to freeze approximately $318,000 worth of USDC and USDT connected to the attack. However, that amount represents only a small fraction of the total funds involved.
Bitget says its protection fund can cover the loss
Bitget has said its User Protection Fund, valued at more than $464 million, is sufficient to cover the affected customer funds. The exchange has also stated that customer account balances remain accurate.
Withdrawals were temporarily suspended following the incident while Bitget investigated and secured the affected infrastructure.
The exchange has announced a phased restart beginning September 28, with additional assets scheduled to follow through October 2.
North Korea link remains an attribution claim
Bitget CEO Gracy Chen has publicly linked the attack to North Korean-linked actors, citing IP addresses and similarities in laundering patterns.
Blockchain intelligence firm Elliptic has also assessed that the incident was highly likely to be connected to North Korean operators. However, attribution of cyberattacks can evolve as investigators examine additional evidence, so the distinction between reported attribution and independently established identity remains important.
Why this breach matters
The Bitget incident highlights a security problem that goes beyond protecting private keys.
Cold storage can protect assets from direct wallet compromise, but exchanges also depend on backend infrastructure, transaction-generation systems, authorization layers and monitoring tools.
If an attacker can manipulate the information presented to an authorization system, the security model can potentially be challenged without directly stealing the underlying signing keys.
For crypto exchanges, the question after Bitget is therefore not only “Are the private keys secure?”
It is also:
“Can the system accurately verify what those keys are being asked to sign?”
That distinction could become one of the most important security lessons from the Bitget incident.