Binance Suffers Biggest Crypto Hack In History With $6.3 Billion Affected [UPDATE] (yahoo.com) 91
UPDATE 10/31/26: "We've now replenished 90% of the stolen assets, and we're committed to covering the remaining 10%," Binance co-CEO Richard Teng posted on X, adding that "Our users will not bear the financial impact of this incident." The FBI issued a statement blaming the breach on a North Korean-sponsored group named TraderTraitor. Binance plans to reopen Sunday.
10/30/26: Binance has temporarily suspended customer withdrawals after suffering what investigators say is the biggest crypto hack in history. According to Binance CEO Yi He, the company estimates roughly $6.3 billion in funds were impacted, with roughly $3 billion in assets frozen on-chain so far. Rest assured, "your money is safe, and we're covering every loss," said co-CEO Richard Teng in a LinkedIn post.
"This was a complex attack," said Teng. "The attacker also used a self-destruct mechanism that destroyed tooling and tracers, making it more difficult for us to trace." From a report: Teng said the incident was not carried out by one person. While the initial investigation indicated the involvement of a compromised laptop, further digging revealed additional points of breach. [...] Blockchain analysis firms TRM Labs and Elliptic have linked the theft to North Korean hackers, with TRM attributing it "with high confidence" to a group known as TraderTraitor, the same group responsible for last year's Bybit hack.
Elliptic estimated Friday that about 44% of the stolen assets have been frozen, with stablecoins accounting for nearly all of those funds. The firm estimated that attackers still controlled over $3 billion in crypto that token issuers cannot directly freeze.
The hackers appear to have compromised Binance's wallet-signing infrastructure, allowing them to authorize transactions that drained billions of dollars in cryptocurrency across multiple blockchains, according to the firms. Binance, in its preliminary stage, has conducted an investigation into the hack, which suggests the incident may have begun with a compromised engineer's laptop. The exchange added that it has found no evidence that wallet passwords were leaked. Below is the original story from yesterday, Oct. 29th.
Binance is investigating a potential hack after more than $2 billion in crypto was drained from one of its wallets into a new external account, with Blockaid estimating nearly $3.3 billion was moved.
"Our teams are aware of reports of a potential security issue and are actively investigating," said Binance on X.
"User funds are safe," said Binance founder CZ. "It does look like a hack on Binance. Appreciate the quick freeze from Tether (~$971m) and Circle (~$823m). I don't manage Binance anymore, but as a shareholder, I expect all user funds will be fully covered."
At around the same time, crypto-based prediction market Polymarket reported its own security incident that wiped out around $2.7 million in user funds.
10/30/26: Binance has temporarily suspended customer withdrawals after suffering what investigators say is the biggest crypto hack in history. According to Binance CEO Yi He, the company estimates roughly $6.3 billion in funds were impacted, with roughly $3 billion in assets frozen on-chain so far. Rest assured, "your money is safe, and we're covering every loss," said co-CEO Richard Teng in a LinkedIn post.
"This was a complex attack," said Teng. "The attacker also used a self-destruct mechanism that destroyed tooling and tracers, making it more difficult for us to trace." From a report: Teng said the incident was not carried out by one person. While the initial investigation indicated the involvement of a compromised laptop, further digging revealed additional points of breach. [...] Blockchain analysis firms TRM Labs and Elliptic have linked the theft to North Korean hackers, with TRM attributing it "with high confidence" to a group known as TraderTraitor, the same group responsible for last year's Bybit hack.
Elliptic estimated Friday that about 44% of the stolen assets have been frozen, with stablecoins accounting for nearly all of those funds. The firm estimated that attackers still controlled over $3 billion in crypto that token issuers cannot directly freeze.
The hackers appear to have compromised Binance's wallet-signing infrastructure, allowing them to authorize transactions that drained billions of dollars in cryptocurrency across multiple blockchains, according to the firms. Binance, in its preliminary stage, has conducted an investigation into the hack, which suggests the incident may have begun with a compromised engineer's laptop. The exchange added that it has found no evidence that wallet passwords were leaked. Below is the original story from yesterday, Oct. 29th.
Binance is investigating a potential hack after more than $2 billion in crypto was drained from one of its wallets into a new external account, with Blockaid estimating nearly $3.3 billion was moved.
"Our teams are aware of reports of a potential security issue and are actively investigating," said Binance on X.
"User funds are safe," said Binance founder CZ. "It does look like a hack on Binance. Appreciate the quick freeze from Tether (~$971m) and Circle (~$823m). I don't manage Binance anymore, but as a shareholder, I expect all user funds will be fully covered."
At around the same time, crypto-based prediction market Polymarket reported its own security incident that wiped out around $2.7 million in user funds.
And this is why ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Trickle out theory (Score:2)
I also disagree, I think this kind of hacking is important for the trickle out theory. It redistributes money into the economy that would be frozen in digital assets helping to support the economy.
Private property Social Justice. Every time. (Score:2)
Re:Private property Social Justice. Every time. (Score:4, Interesting)
If people choose to buy crypto they should be able to do so and keep the assets they earned and bought with their earnings.
No. I mean, we shouldn't steal it from them, but they should be subject to taxation at a minimum at the level they would have paid if they had real investments in the economy just so that things are fair to everybody. More importantly, when they choose crypto, they are 100% responsible for any losses and nobody else has any responsibility to make sure that they get to keep their stuff. That's entirely on them and any service providers they choose to pay for themselves. It makes sense for actual US dollars or British pounds to be protected on some level by the secret service or Bank of England respectively because that's what they are paid for and that's the promise you get when you invest in those. It makes sense for deposits in normal registered American Banks or normal British Banks to be protected by the US authorities or British security services respectively. It makes no sense for anyone to care about people who deliberately chose to opt out of those protections by choosing a system invented by someone else.
In fact, it's actively harmful to market competition as well as essentially giving away taxpayer resources to foreign adversaries for anyone to attempt to protect crypto. You are and should be on your own. Eventually this will help people to begin to understand the value of having a system that enforces laws.
Re: (Score:2)
it's actively harmful to market competition as well as essentially giving away taxpayer resources to foreign adversaries for anyone to attempt to protect crypto.
I'd agree on this point. You want FDIC protection? Get a bank account. You want to speculate on crypto? That's on you.
Re: (Score:1)
No. I mean, we shouldn't steal it from them, but they should be subject to taxation at a minimum at the level they would have paid...
Users ARE subject to taxation when using cryptocurrencies. Suggesting they're not shows your ignorance on the subject.
Eventually this will help people to begin to understand the value of having a system that enforces laws.
Cryptocurrency IS "a system that enforces laws." If anything, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin enforces more laws than dollars because flappy pieces of linen can't enforce any laws, whereas the code that operates Bitcoin can (and does) enforce many.
Re: (Score:2)
Try to put two flappy pieces of linen in exactly the same place, and then tell me that they can't enforce any laws. Try to transport a flappy piece of linen from one side of the earth to the other in less than one second, then tell me they can't enforce any laws. Try to put make $6.3 billion worth of flappy linen formatted as $100-bills weight less than 60 metric tons, then tell me that they can't enforce any laws.
The laws are different, but they're there.
Re: (Score:2)
Users ARE subject to taxation when using cryptocurrencies. Suggesting they're not shows your ignorance on the subject.
Those that are honest and those that get caught. Sure. There are plenty that use the systems without getting caught. My suggestion is to catch more of them and also to broaden the eligibility.
Re:Trickle out theory (Score:4, Insightful)
Hang on - are you saying you are pro-theft because it's wealth redistribution?
What the fuck?
Re:Trickle out theory (Score:4, Interesting)
Hang on - are you saying you are pro-theft because it's wealth redistribution?
What the fuck?
If the blockchain is the final arbiter of ownership, is this really theft. I am happy to admit that it can be abuse of someone else's computer, which would make it illegal, but the blockchain is specifically designed to opt out of other normal legal controls. Having made that choice, suddenly coming back and demanding that we call it "theft" in a traditional legal sense, when there's no such clear definition within bitcoin, is very weird.
And yes, I agree that bitcoin that North Korea and/or Russia have taken should be transferred to someone else if the NSA or some other hacking organization can find a way to do that. However, that applies also to any bitcoin that those governments have acquired through trade or other more traditional means. Also, if they do manage to do that, the NSA or others should keep the bitcoin and sell it on the open market. There is no reasonable way to say that it has an owner that it should be returned to.
Re: (Score:2)
"If the blockchain is the final arbiter of ownership, is this really theft. "
That "if" is covering up the antecedent question you should be asking: is a blockchain a final arbiter of ownership? Blockchains provide decentralized ledgers. They say nothing about what happened before the entry is made.
Access is not a synonym of authorization.
Re: (Score:2)
That "if" is covering up the antecedent question you should be asking: is a blockchain a final arbiter of ownership? Blockchains provide decentralized ledgers. They say nothing about what happened before the entry is made.
The real answer to that is that yes; the bitcoin designers have decided that's the way it is and should be. They specifically set out to opt out of the alternative court based definition of ownership.
Re: (Score:2)
Cash has also opted out of what you deem "normal legal controls". A blockchain entry is like physical possession of cash. It fully determines who can manipulate the cash, but it doesn't determine legitimacy of possessing that cash.
Re: (Score:2)
Cash dropped in the street; sure. Cash under your bed is still subject to breaking and entering rules.
Re: (Score:2)
That's some mental gymnastics there.
The blockchain is a ledger. Nothing more.
Banks have ledgers to show account deposits and withdrawals too, but it doesn't "own" what the ledger tracks any more than a bank "owns" your account balance. Do you think that when you deposit money into your checking account that you are giving ownership of that money to the bank? Or is it still your money?
If someone takes your shit without authorization, that's still theft by definition. It doesn't matter if it's "blockchain
Re: (Score:2)
That's some mental gymnastics there.
The blockchain is a ledger. Nothing more.
Disagree strongly. Not because it's my view of how it should be, but because it's the committed policy of the bitcoin community. The can just write the code into the software to directly reverse thefts. It's completely possible to just have the bitcoin software have a point in future where a set of balances just chage. As a policy they do not do that.
If someone takes your shit without authorization, that's still theft by definition. It doesn't matter if it's "blockchain" or someone throwing a brick through your window and walking out with your TV - theft is theft. They are taking your property without your permission. Being "on the blockchain" doesn't change what it is, at all.
The thing is that there is no physical real representation of a bitcoin. They don't "take" anything. They just change two integers. One up, one down. It's noth
Re: (Score:3)
Cops just have to be on the watch for someone withdrawing $2.2B from a 7-11 crypto-ATM.
Re:And this is why ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Indeed. The problem is system immanent cannot be fixed. The whole idea of "deregulated finance" is broken and cannot work. The reason why banking is so regulated is because it had severe problems before. The crapto-bros are in denial about history and are currently repeating it.
Re: (Score:2)
Moving fastly
Re:And this is why ... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are storing your cryptocurrency in a device that you cannot audit you likely already lost your money the moment you bought those crypto tokens. Whether the keys are stored locally or in the cloud does not make any difference.
Many us of here write software. I know I can't "trust the code" in a purchased binary device.
"Trust the code" is a tagline of cryptocurrency hucksters.
Hell, we can't trust that our TV sets aren't spying on us 24/7.
Crypto is largely a spin on the classic ponzi scheme and money laundering.
Re:And this is why ... (Score:4, Interesting)
If you are storing your cryptocurrency in a device that you cannot audit you likely already lost your money the moment you bought those crypto tokens.
Hence a dedicated device, used for nothing else. A dirt cheap chromebook, that old computer or phone that has had a factory wipe. Never your day-to-day computer or phone. Much like the computer or phone you should be using for online banking.
Whether the keys are stored locally or in the cloud does not make any difference.
I did not say avoid the cloud. I said avoid 3rd parties handling your wallet.
Crypto is largely a spin on the classic ponzi scheme and money laundering.
Not at all. There is no interest or dividends where earlier investors are paid with recent investor's deposits. The preceding is a ponzi scheme.
Crypto is the "Greater Fool" theory, where one believes that there will be someone else to buy the asset at an even higher price in the future, so today's price does not matter. Also that the salvage value of the asset does not matter.
Re: (Score:3)
If you are storing your cryptocurrency in a device that you cannot audit you likely already lost your money the moment you bought those crypto tokens.
Hence a dedicated device, used for nothing else.
Or maybe even a nice hardware wallet? Like this one here?
https://www.bleepingcomputer.c... [bleepingcomputer.com]
Face it, crapto is stupid. Banks are regulated strongly for really good reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Face it, crapto is stupid
Block chains are interesting, sadly they get too closely associated with crypto. Which is just one use case.
Re: (Score:2)
No argument about that. Blockchains have good uses.
Re: (Score:2)
Face it, crapto is stupid
Block chains are interesting, sadly they get too closely associated with crypto. Which is just one use case.
Block chains are way too slow handle modern financial transactions. They are interesting, but limited use cases in low transaction rate scenarios.
They have similarities with LLM token evaluation and a lot of the same problems.
Re: (Score:2)
\
Block chains are way too slow handle modern financial transactions. They are interesting, but limited use cases in low transaction rate scenarios.
They have similarities with LLM token evaluation and a lot of the same problems.
Well they are consensus based, but the original vision of that was regular people all over the world, using regular hardware, would be determining that consensus.
As opposed to what we really got which is a relatively small number of corporate miners, concentrated in some jurisdictions, that grossly outweighs the individual miners, and may be at a point where some of the security assumptions of crypto are compromised. I.e. decentralization.
Re: (Score:2)
\
Block chains are way too slow handle modern financial transactions. They are interesting, but limited use cases in low transaction rate scenarios.
They have similarities with LLM token evaluation and a lot of the same problems.
Well they are consensus based, but the original vision of that was regular people all over the world, using regular hardware, would be determining that consensus.
As opposed to what we really got which is a relatively small number of corporate miners, concentrated in some jurisdictions, that grossly outweighs the individual miners, and may be at a point where some of the security assumptions of crypto are compromised. I.e. decentralization.
Regular hardware from around when the original bitcoin paper was released is pretty useless for mining when the computation required keeps rising exponentially. Some of the more successful Crypto miners (aka "crypto bros") are now into building AI data centers. Which gives you an idea of the scale needed.
LLMs remind me of blockchain where you add a new token to the end of the prompt and then have to traverse the entire prompt again to produce the next token. Wash, rinse, repeat. That's really inefficient,
Re: (Score:2)
Well they are consensus based, but the original vision of that was regular people all over the world, using regular hardware, would be determining that consensus.
As opposed to what we really got which is a relatively small number of corporate miners, concentrated in some jurisdictions, that grossly outweighs the individual miners, and may be at a point where some of the security assumptions of crypto are compromised. I.e. decentralization.
Regular hardware from around when the original bitcoin paper was released is pretty useless for mining when the computation required keeps rising exponentially.
What I am telling you is the design of the security model. And why that security model is at risk of not working.
Some of the more successful Crypto miners (aka "crypto bros") are now into building AI data centers.
Yes and no. Crypto mining facilities can be like AI facilities, inexpensive power, etc. But the hardware is completely different. Think of AI facilities having something like a GPU, those no longer have the performance necessary for mining either. Except possibly for some weird alt coins, not bitcoin. What mining facilities have is dedicated hardware built for nothing else. ASIC design. They cann
Re: (Score:2)
If you are storing your cryptocurrency in a device that you cannot audit you likely already lost your money the moment you bought those crypto tokens.
Hence a dedicated device, used for nothing else.
Or maybe even a nice hardware wallet? Like this one here?
https://www.bleepingcomputer.c... [bleepingcomputer.com]
Face it, crapto is stupid. Banks are regulated strongly for really good reasons.
Thanks for proving the point! BTW, having a dedicated Chromebook, PC or Mac offers almost zero protection if the keys stored on them are worth the time obtain them. You cannot trust or audit the code inside. And the software vendors ALL declare no guarantee for any warrantable use of their products.
And if some Crypto promoter offers you a free hardware wallet to protect your keys, RUN AWAY!
Re: (Score:2)
You think Binance is not using dedicated secret storage? I guess its possible for them do store secrets in an excel file on a SMB share or something, but I doubt it.
Re: (Score:2)
You think Binance is not using dedicated secret storage?
A 3rd party exchange is not vulnerable only through key theft. Servers themselves have been taken and crypto lost.
Re: (Score:2)
You think Binance is not using dedicated secret storage? I guess its possible for them do store secrets in an excel file on a SMB share or something, but I doubt it.
SBF raised $20 billion in real currency with just a few Excel Spreadsheets. [yahoo.com]
So why not store secrets in them too?
Re: (Score:2)
> that old computer or phone that has had a factory wipe
Don't trust old phones with too much value.
There are hardware bugs on Bluetooth, WiFi, and SS7 that are fairly easy to hack with the right setup and SS7 especially is built into the same baseband controller so main memory can be exfiltrated over cellular even without an active SIM.
Keeping it turned off most of the time reduces the attack surface, of course.
A few phones do better - switchable modems, etc. but very few and even some phones that meet G
Re: (Score:2)
Crypto is largely a spin on the classic ponzi scheme and money laundering.
Not at all. There is no interest or dividends where earlier investors are paid with recent investor's deposits. The preceding is a ponzi scheme.
Crypto is the "Greater Fool" theory, where one believes that there will be someone else to buy the asset at an even higher price in the future, so today's price does not matter. Also that the salvage value of the asset does not matter.
I suggest you do a review of FTX, Alameda Research and SBF. [kpmg.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Crypto is largely a spin on the classic ponzi scheme and money laundering.
Not at all. There is no interest or dividends where earlier investors are paid with recent investor's deposits. The preceding is a ponzi scheme.
Crypto is the "Greater Fool" theory, where one believes that there will be someone else to buy the asset at an even higher price in the future, so today's price does not matter. Also that the salvage value of the asset does not matter.
I suggest you do a review of FTX, Alameda Research and SBF. [kpmg.com]
FTX was an exchange, not a cryptocurrency. FTX engaged in all sorts of corporate corruption and misused funds, but not in a ponzi manner.
FTX had their own Cryptocurrency (Score:2)
Crypto is largely a spin on the classic ponzi scheme and money laundering.
Not at all. There is no interest or dividends where earlier investors are paid with recent investor's deposits. The preceding is a ponzi scheme.
Crypto is the "Greater Fool" theory, where one believes that there will be someone else to buy the asset at an even higher price in the future, so today's price does not matter. Also that the salvage value of the asset does not matter.
I suggest you do a review of FTX, Alameda Research and SBF. [kpmg.com]
FTX created and sold their own token FTT to crypto end-users. It is at the top of that KPMG autopsy report:
"FTX launched it’s own token, “FTT”. FTT provided holders with a discount on trading fees and OTC rebates, with FTX buying back and ‘burning’ FTT tokens based on FTX profitability – reducing supply hence increasing token price."
They used a flywheel model which works until there is a run on their crypto tokens. Very similar to a ponzi scheme. Customers think their accounts are becoming worth more, so they don't question. And like a ponzi scheme FTX provided incentives to not cash out.
"You lost your $$$ the moment you bought the tokens."
Re: (Score:2)
They used a flywheel model which works until there is a run on their crypto tokens. Very similar to a ponzi scheme.
The same event triggering collapse does not mean the models are the same, flywheel and ponzi. Its the mechanics of the model that I am referring to.
Customers think their accounts are becoming worth more, so they don't question.
Too vague, don't all the scam models do that?
And like a ponzi scheme FTX provided incentives to not cash out.
Again, too vague, too common.
Re: (Score:2)
Crypto is largely a spin on the classic ponzi scheme and money laundering.
Clearly. But you know what else we learn from classic Ponzi schemes and more modern versions? "There is a sucker born every minute" is literally true and these people keep the scams going.
Re: And this is why ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Like a wallet with a surreptitiously installed cellular modem provided by what was an "approved vendor?" Which would eventually be used to siphon off holdings? Nah, no thanks dumbass
The same precautions as online banking. A dedicated device, used for nothing else. A dirt cheap chromebook, that old computer or phone that has had a factory wipe. Never your day-to-day computer or phone.
Re: (Score:3)
Not your keys, not.your crypto.
Re: (Score:2)
And this is why cryptocurrency was designed for users to hold their own wallet keys on their own devices. Not some 3rd party service.
On what hardware that cannot be hacked containing code that you cannot audit and that is not warranted or insured against loss. Chromebooks, PCs, Macs are all hackable. And hardware keys that can't be audited are only as secure as the incentive to break into them and obtain the keys.
"Trust the code" is a scam. [pbs.org]
Crypto is very profitable for the criminals running the exchanges like Binance. The former CEO was pardoned by Trump. [bbc.com] And then went on assist the Trump family World Liberty Financial in creating that T
Re: (Score:1)
Chromebooks, PCs, Macs are all hackable.
Did you miss the part about not using your day-to-day, rather have a clean and updated system that is used for online banking and nothing else? That reduces the hacking threat quite a bit.
rug pull (Score:5, Funny)
$ rug pull
Access Denied.
$sudo rug pull
Transferring $5.6B...
Re: rug pull (Score:1)
eesh wish I had mod points : )
Grandpa, tell me again about those bank-robberies (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
If they catch the guys who did this then yeah we will know but if they haven't caught these guys in a few months then it's either North Korea or one of the other nation states or it's just money laundering. Honestly the money la
Re: (Score:1)
Crypto makes it much easier. The crypto can be laundered through mixing, and moved to countries that won't extradite.
In this case they are blaming North Korea, which if accurate means that the money will simply be traded with China and Russia.
Had To Happen (Score:3)
Zhao needed some walking around money.
Oh no (Score:1)
Pardon me? (Score:1)
Funds Are Safu (Score:2)
Oh gosh. That's too bad. (Score:2)
Crapto. Always good for a laugh. (Score:2)
They are making all the dumb mistakes the banking system made a long time ago, just larger and more pathetic.
"I expect all user funds will be fully covered" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But I've heard that in crypto, often 1 >= 2...
Re: (Score:2)
When the Crypto Chart says 1 > 2, you are supposed to double-down and HODL.
Re:"I expect all user funds will be fully covered" (Score:4, Interesting)
That was my thinking too - there's no possible way they can recover from this, is there? No one has that sort of reserve, so either customer money is lost and won't be refunded, or else binance has to refill the coffers, which it simply won't be able to do.
This leads me on to another point. If one persons laptop has access to multiple billions of company money, you've got a significant problem. If any computer has to have access to big funds, for whatever reason, then it should be hidden away in a secure room, with extremely limited access to anyone, via any means.
More likely though, this money should have been segregated and stored in multiple secure 'rooms', and no one should have direct access to it all. You should be able to hack the finance director's (or anyone senior with privileged access) laptop to shreds and still not get to all of the money. It seem the crypto bros still have a long way to go before they're anything like banks.
The funds were frozen? (Score:1)
I guess I don't know enough about bitcoin and it's many cousins, but wasn't the idea of this digital currency stuff to be immune to things like payment tracing and freezing (impounding?) of accounts?
Re: (Score:3)
Some chains allow freezing specific transactions. It may or may not require a consensus of validators. It's rather controversial among crypto enthusiasts.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Controversial?
Seems like it eliminates the whole point of the project.
Non-revocable payments were supposed to be the objective, are they not?
Re: (Score:2)
Cryptocurrency has as many objectives as there are nerds involved in it. They change whenever one isn't working out so well too.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the chain. In the case of Ethereum, originally yes. Which is one of the reasons why Ethereum Classic forked off from the main chain. Blockchains like XRP not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
Also smart contract defined tokens may allow tokens to be frozen per the terms of the contract.
other hacks, etc (Score:5, Informative)
Multiple exchanges were hit. Binance, Bitget, Bybit, Kucoin, and Swiftx. Also some details on how the Binance hack might have gone down:
https://news.bitcoin.com/secur... [bitcoin.com]
Made the big time at last. (Score:3)
The most that traditional currency banking could muster up for single instance losses was a measly $1 billion. This trounces that record. Well done. I'll just keep my money elsewhere. Where it's.... you know. Money.
Play stupid games win stupid prices. (Score:4, Insightful)
What? Wait! (Score:2)
"User funds are safe" followed by "I expect all user funds will be fully covered."
It seems to me that at least one - or both - of these sentences isn't right.
Pardon me (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I foresee another $1,000,000 buy of Trumpcoin in CZ's near future.
Perhaps, but Trump already pardoned CZ once and erased all the fines he was to pay in exchange for making Trump's family crypto firm World Liberty Financial actually work as his sons were unable to do that. [factcheck.org]
Crypto is just a "wretched hive of scum and villainy" and victims.
Re: (Score:2)
Stablecoins blocked (Score:2)
That should tell you right now that if you're involved in this crypto scam crap that you shouldn't be trusting stablecoins as they are by design made to fuck you over at the whim of a centralized authority.
Stablecoins are just the chips for the casino (Score:2)
That should tell you right now that if you're involved in this crypto scam crap that you shouldn't be trusting stablecoins as they are by design made to fuck you over at the whim of a centralized authority.
They are only as good as their backing in the real currency they are *supposedly* backed by.
If they get frozen that usually means they are backed by NOTHING!
This smells like an inside job (Score:3)
If that's the case, it should surprise exactly nobody, for two reasons. First, the sleazebags who run crypto "companies" hire other sleazebags because they have no choice; nobody with a shred of integrity or ethics would work there. Second, because the entire move-fast-break-things attitude coupled with their disdain for the mechanisms of traditional finance has led them to construct highly vulnerable systems that lack adequate compartmentalization.
This doesn't rule out North Korean involvement -- if I were them, I'd have placed my own people inside every major crypto operation a long time ago. It's always nice when your adversaries are paying part of your attack expenses.
"Bank" run? (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Burying the lead there a bit (Score:2)
Is no one going to address the comment "44% of the stolen assets have been frozen"? I mean wasn't the whole idea about the blockchain supposed to be that no one can control your money? Now suddenly token issuers can freeze assets?
Let that sink in for a moment, and then ask yourself how this is any different from traditional banking at this point (except that it's controlled by techbros and not a legal framework).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
counterfeit (Score:2)
Sounds like an inside job to me... (Score:2)
Shocking (Score:2)
Crypto is all for scamming (Score:2)
Crypto has basically no legal use that can't be done easier with conventional payment methods. Crypto is a way to launder money. It's a way to dodge taxes. It's also suckered in people that think they'll time the market. Furthermore, it's entirely speculative and backed by absolutely nothing.
It's no wonder the Trump family is so involved with it and the "predictions markets", aka unregulated gambling. It's all designed to fuck the layman out of his money.
Everyone is Lying to you for Money (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It turns out Everyone is Lying to you for Money [youtube.com].
That URL does not work. But this one does. Everyone is Lying to you for Money [youtube.com]. Which is an interview with the film maker which contains much of the movies content.