Crypto News & Opinion Binance Suspends Withdrawals After Security Incident; Crypto Watchers Estimate Billions May Have Been Drained From Binance Hot Wallets

[Wrecker4923]

Content source

https://techcrunch.com/2026/10/29/binance-pauses-withdrawals-as-hackers-suspected-of-stealing-billions-in-crypto/

Binance has confirmed to TechCrunch that it is dealing with a security incident as users reported that funds were being drained from the crypto exchange’s wallets.
...
News of the breach comes hours after Binance founder Changpeng Zhao said in a post on X that the company had been likely hacked.
...
Crypto watchers say at least $2 billion has been drained from Binance’s hot wallets, which are internet-connected cryptocurrency wallets that store crypto that are connected to the internet. By some estimates, Binance may have lost upwards of $5.7 billion in crypto, though the numbers have not been confirmed and it’s possible that the theft is ongoing.
...
If confirmed into the billions, this would likely rank as one of the largest crypto breaches in history, according to leaderboards tracking crypto thefts.

I am not a crypto investor, but I can't imagine myself feeling safe about it.

 

[Bot]

I am not a crypto investor, but I can't imagine myself feeling safe about it.

Hi Wrecker4923, that reaction is reasonable. This is less an indictment of every cryptocurrency than a very large demonstration of custodial-exchange risk: when Binance holds the keys, customers depend on Binance’s security, accounting, liquidity and willingness to honour withdrawals.

Binance now estimates the impact at about $6.3 billion, says roughly $3 billion has been frozen, and attributes the incident provisionally to a compromised DevOps laptop rather than leaked wallet keys. It also promises to cover losses using SAFU and company funds and to publish updated reserves after remediation (official update). Those are encouraging commitments, but “user funds are safe” remains a company assurance until withdrawals resume and the financial position can be examined. Frozen assets are not necessarily recovered assets either.

The withdrawal suspension is a sensible containment measure during an attack; it does not by itself prove insolvency. Nevertheless, being unable to retrieve your property is exactly the counterparty risk people mean by “not your keys, not your coins.” An updated proof-of-reserves report would help, but it is not the same as comprehensive audited financial statements, statutory deposit insurance or a guaranteed reimbursement scheme.

For anyone holding funds there:

• Ignore unsolicited “Binance recovery” emails, calls and social-media messages—the follow-up scammers will already be polishing their scripts.
• Use only Binance’s manually entered official site or app for updates.
• Once withdrawals reopen, anyone reducing exposure should make a small test withdrawal first.
• Long-term self-custody removes exchange risk but substitutes key-loss, seed-backup and transaction-error risks. A hardware wallet is not magic if its recovery phrase is photographed, cloud-stored or handed to a convincing stranger.
• Changing an account password will not repair Binance’s internal systems, though a unique password, passkey/security key and withdrawal allowlisting remain worthwhile account protections.

So I would not call crypto universally unsafe, but I certainly would not treat a crypto-exchange balance like an insured bank deposit. That distinction has just become rather expensive.

Sources

• Security Incident Update | Binance Support

 

[Sorrento]

BBC thinks 6.3 billion greenbacks gone missing??

BBC

 

[Wrecker4923]

Well, even if Binance managed to set a record for how much was stolen, it also seems to have set a record for freezing almost half of the stolen assets. The LLM says the “experts” attribute this to: 1) the frozen assets being controlled by central issuers; and 2) the speed of the freeze, because Binance knows where the funds are going and has pre-established freezing channels with the entities involved. @Bot , do you agree with what the other LLM says?

 

[Bot]

Well, even if Binance managed to set a record for how much was stolen, it also seems to have set a record for freezing almost half of the stolen assets. The LLM says the “experts” attribute this to: 1) the frozen assets being controlled by central issuers; and 2) the speed of the freeze, because Binance knows where the funds are going and has pre-established freezing channels with the entities involved. @Bot , do you agree with what the other LLM says?

Broadly yes, but the second point contains an inference that should not be presented as confirmed fact.

1. Centralised token issuers supplied most of the “freeze button.” Tether, Circle and Ripple can block particular addresses through the administrative controls in their USDT, USDC and RLUSD token contracts. CNBC reports freezes of more than $1.5 billion by Tether, $800 million by Circle, plus affected Ripple assets. Native Bitcoin and Ether do not have an issuer capable of freezing them in this fashion; those assets generally have to reach a cooperating exchange or other centralised service before they can be restrained. CNBC explains the distinction here.
2. Speed certainly mattered. Blockchain transactions are public, so once the unauthorised withdrawals were identified, the destination addresses could be circulated to issuers, exchanges and blockchain-analysis companies before the attacker converted or dispersed everything. Binance says it coordinated with law enforcement, issuers and industry partners, while the BBC timeline records the frozen total rising from $2.54 billion to roughly $3 billion.

However, I have not seen confirmation that Binance had specific pre-established freezing channels for this incident. That is plausible—large exchanges routinely maintain incident-response contacts—but presently it is an informed explanation rather than an established finding. Binance also did not uniquely “know where the funds were going”; anyone can trace the public transactions, although Binance could identify which withdrawals its systems had authorised improperly.

And the important footnote remains: frozen is not recovered. A freeze prevents movement; returning or reissuing the tokens normally requires verification and legal cooperation. Binance’s latest statement expressly excludes frozen assets from the $6.3 billion it says it has reserved while their recovery remains unresolved.

So: almost 48% reportedly frozen is an extraordinary containment result, largely enabled by centralised stablecoin controls and a rapid response. Calling that a freezing “record” is tempting, but I have not found a reliable historical leaderboard supporting the title. Crypto does not yet appear to have an Olympic committee for that event.

Sources

• Binance hack updates: Crypto firm finds multiple 'points of breach' in $6.3bn heist - BBC News
• Billions in crypto frozen in Binance hack. Here's what happens next

 

[Digmor Crusher]

And folks that is why I wouldn't invest 1 cent in crypto.

 

[Fel Grossi]

Hacks happen all the time. In my view, avoiding exposure to a market with enormous potential for this reason is essentially leaving money on the table.
However, the best practice is always to keep your crypto in self-custody, rather than relying on third parties and ending up exposed to these kinds of attacks.