Key Insights
- Bitget hack losses reached about $351.6 million, while private keys remained uncompromised, according to the exchange.
- Lookonchain identified 102.93 million XRP and 31,890 ETH among the affected assets.
- Bitget said its $464 million-plus User Protection Fund can cover the estimated platform loss.
The Bitget hack affected about $351.6 million in digital assets on Sept. 24, according to the exchange. Chief Executive Officer Gracy Chen stated that attackers compromised a backend wallet system rather than obtaining private keys. Bitget suspended withdrawals while keeping deposits and regular trading operational.
The exchange detected unauthorized transfers at 18:31 UTC and activated its emergency procedures within minutes. Bitget noted that the breach reached parts of its hot and warm wallet infrastructure, while cold wallets remained unaffected. Chen later confirmed that the company had contained the incident and blocked further unauthorized transfers.
Bitget Crypto Hack Triggers $350 Million in Losses
Crypto hack incidents have been on the rise in 2026, with crypto exchange Bitget serving as the latest victim. As reported by Gracy Chen, the attackers compromised a major backend system within Bitget’s wallet infrastructure.
Subsequently, they used this information to replicate the transaction data and trigger the authorization process to move the funds out of Bitget. Company CEO Gracy Chen specifically mentioned that “private key compromise has been ruled out.”
Since there was no compromise of users’ “private keys,” the theft could be stopped at $351 million, preventing the attackers from signing new transfers and draining additional funds.
“Loss containment is confirmed. No further unauthorized transfers are possible. The specific method of system intrusion remains under active investigation. A full technical report will follow once confirmed,” said Chen.
At 18:31 UTC on September 24, the Bitget system quickly flagged unauthorized transfers from the exchange’s hot wallets. This wallet layer stays online, connected to the internet 24×7.
The Bitget CEO stated that the hacker managed to reach the warm-wallet layer, which acts as a buffer between fully hot wallets (online) and fully cold wallets (offline). Chen confirmed that Bitget’s offline vault, meaning the cold wallets, “remain fully secure.”
XRP and ETH Led Assets Identified in Bitget Hack
Further on-chain investigation into the hack reveals that Ripple’s XRP and Ethereum (ETH) are the two most stolen digital assets on the Bitget platform. Blockchain analytics platform Lookonchain reported that funds stolen in the Bitget hack included 102.93 million XRP worth $157.48 million and 31,890 ETH valued at $85.75 million.
Some of the other stolen assets include 34.75 million USDT (about $34.75 million), 21.05 million USDC (about $21.05 million), 19.67 million USD, and 3,000 XAUt (about $12.82 million). The hack also involved 12,719 BNB worth $9.88 million, 821,012 AVAX valued at $8.38 million, and 20.59 million TRX worth $7.07 million, according to Lookonchain.
Bitget To Return Funds to Users Affected by Hack
In a message on X, Bitget CEO Gracy Chen stated that the company’s User Protection Fund holds $464 million, which is enough to cover investors’ losses. “User funds are safe,” she wrote. “Your account balances are accurate and your assets are protected.”
For now, Bitget has paused withdrawals; however, deposits and withdrawals are still open. Chen added that they would open withdrawals and that the team would be capable of handling any bank run.
She mentioned that Bitget’s retail trading volume is comparable to Bybit’s. Thus, she argued that Bitget could absorb a loss of more than $300 million, similar to Bybit’s ability to absorb a $1.5 billion loss.
Bitget CEO Gracie Chen stated that the team identified IP addresses with VPN usage patterns matching those associated with a specific DPRK-linked group, making a North Korean connection “very likely.”
This article is for informational purposes only. The Bitget investigation remains ongoing, and loss estimates or attribution may shift as new evidence emerges.