coindcx

🚨 $16M $USDT Outflow: A Crypto Security Wake-Up Call?

Around $16M in USDT moved from wallets linked to CoinDCX, raising questions about wallet security and transaction monitoring.

CoinDCX says the issue involved old wallets and that customer funds remain safe.

How do you view this incident—as a warning for exchanges or a reminder to improve wallet management?

What's your view? Share your thoughts in the comments below. 👇

#CryptoSecurity #USDT #CoinDCX #Blockchain #CryptoNews

🚨 $COINDCX DENIES NEW BREACH, RECALLS JULY 2025 COMPROMISED WALLETS! 📊

📌 CoinDCX’s statement draws a clear line between historic wallet compromise and today’s on‑chain chatter. The compromised addresses, first hit in July 2025, continue to move assets, but the exchange stresses no fresh intrusion into its platform. 🦈 This distinction helps dampen panic‑driven sell pressure that often follows ambiguous blockchain spikes.

🔍 Traders should watch for any liquidity sweeps triggered by these legacy wallets, yet the core risk remains confined to the original breach vector. Maintaining 2FA and regular account audits stays prudent. 💡 How are you adjusting your security posture in light of this clarification? 👇

⚠️ Not financial advice. Always manage your risk. 🛡️

🏷️ #COINDCX #Security #Exchange #Crypto

🔥 💎

🚨 $16M MOVED FROM COINDCX-LINKED WALLETS — THE BIGGER WARNING IS WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THEY WERE RETIRED

CoinDCX initially rejected claims of a new hack
But on-chain investigators traced nearly $16M moving from wallets linked to the exchange
Here's the contradiction 👀

$BTC

CoinDCX said those addresses had been retired after its 2025 breach
Yet blockchain researchers found evidence of continued deposit activity
The exchange later acknowledged that its process for sweeping deposits from old addresses had failed during a period, causing operational losses
CoinDCX says affected customer deposits were credited and user funds remain safe
The real lesson isn't whether this qualifies as a second hack
It's that retiring an address doesn't automatically stop people from sending money to it
And a broken recovery process can leave funds exposed long after an incident

$ZEC

🔍 What I'd check
• Generate a fresh deposit address from the official exchange app
• Verify previous deposits were credited
• Report any discrepancy through official support
Security isn't just stopping the original breach
It's ensuring the old vulnerability can no longer affect users

#CoinDCX #CryptoSecurity #ExchangeRisk

🚨 CoinDCX Faces Questions Over Deposits Sent to Old Wallet Addresses

Crypto exchange CoinDCX says it has absorbed losses linked to deposits sent to outdated wallet addresses that could not be swept successfully. The exchange also says affected users have been credited.

However, blockchain investigator ZachXBT has alleged that $15.8 million in user deposits was unaccounted for. CoinDCX has not disclosed the amount of its losses, leaving important questions unanswered.

From a trader’s perspective, this situation highlights a risk that often gets overlooked: depositing funds is not just about choosing the right exchange. Wallet infrastructure, transaction handling, and transparent communication matter just as much.

When funds go missing or become inaccessible, users deserve clear explanations backed by verifiable information. Until more details emerge, it’s important to separate confirmed statements from allegations.

The bigger question is simple: how can exchanges strengthen deposit systems to prevent old wallet addresses from becoming a costly problem for users?

$IRYS $PTB $AKE

#CryptoSecurity #CoinDCX #blockchain #CryptoNews #Binance

CoinDCX's $16M mystery just got darker — the new accusations point at its own reserve list.

Salus CMO Darcy traced two addresses from CoinDCX's proof-of-reserves report sending funds to the hacker's address, noting the hot wallet kept distributing 15 TRX gas before and after what the exchange calls the breach: "Are you suggesting that the hackers were handling gas funding distribution for you?"

The flows reached OKX (~5.47M USDT), Binance (~2.02M) and Gate (~1.39M) — with some landing at Huione and Xinbi, Telegram marketplaces Elliptic ties to large-scale laundering.

ZachXBT pushed co-founder Gupta to admit a deposit address kept sweeping user funds ~10 months after the July 2025 hack. CoinDCX told Hindu BusinessLine its deposit-sweeping "failed for a particular period," causing "operational losses, which were absorbed by CoinDCX."

Counterweight: CoinDCX says no current wallet was touched and no user funds were lost — but researchers aren't courts.

If the hacker's wallet sat on CoinDCX's own reserve list, who answers for the $16M — the hacker, or the exchange?

#CryptoNews #CoinDCX #ExchangeHack #CryptoSecurity

India's leading crypto exchange is in a public dispute with ZachXBT over $16M that moved last night.

Timeline: on Oct 21 at 23:35 UTC+8, wallets linked to CoinDCX sent ~15.99M USDT and 5,783 TRX to a single Tron address, which then split the funds — some landing at Binance, OKX and Gate, per the transaction report. The flag came from Darcy's post at Salus.

CoinDCX CEO Sumit Gupta says this is not a new hack: the wallets were created in January 2025 and compromised in last year's $44M breach, and the hackers are just reusing old addresses. Users' funds are safe, trading is normal.

But ZachXBT pushed back: one flagged address, he says, kept sweeping user deposits and receiving gas funds as recently as May 2026, and sent funds to CoinDCX's current hot wallet — asking how a "dead" wallet handled user deposits.

Tape: BTC $81,877 (-2.0%/24h), ETH $2,403 (-2.6%/24h) — context only; no market move tied to this.

So why was a "compromised" July 2025 wallet still touching user deposits in May 2026? DYOR. $BTC #CryptoNews #CoinDCX #ExchangeSecurity #CryptoHacks

India’s largest exchange, CoinDCX, has really come under on-chain scrutiny this time: On Wednesday, on-chain sleuth Darcy revealed that around $16 million had flowed out of the exchange’s hot wallet and several deposit addresses—15.99 million USDT plus 5,783 TRX. It was all sent to the same Tron address, then split up and distributed, with some funds ending up at deposit addresses belonging to Binance, OKX, and Gate.

The exchange denied it right away, saying these addresses were created in January 2025 and abandoned after the July 2025 hack, when $44 million was stolen. It claimed hackers were reusing old addresses and that users’ funds were safe.

But that explanation doesn’t hold up: ZachXBT called them out directly, pointing out that one of the deposit addresses was still actively sending and receiving funds in April and May this year. The claim that it had been “abandoned long ago” was just an attempt to shift the blame. More awkwardly, the exchange itself admitted that a temporary deposit process had malfunctioned, leaving users’ deposits stuck in an old address—and said the platform would cover the losses.

The biggest risk with centralized exchanges is never hackers; it’s that you have no idea whether they can even keep control of their own wallet addresses. $USDT $TRX #CoinDCX #ExchangeSecurity

India’s largest exchange, CoinDCX, is in trouble again. On October 21, on-chain investigator Darcy, an executive at security firm Salus, found that around 15.99 million USDT and 5,784 TRX—about $16 million in total—had flowed out of CoinDCX hot wallets and multiple deposit addresses. The funds first went to a TRON address, then were split up and sent to deposit addresses at Binance, OKX, and Gate—a textbook laundering pattern. CoinDCX co-founder Sumit Gupta was quick to deny the reports: this wasn’t a new hack; the addresses were created in January 2025, compromised in the $44 million heist that July, and abandoned long ago. Users’ funds are safe. But on-chain sleuth ZachXBT directly called him out: the deposit address in question, TQKJQ, remained active for a full 10 months after July 2025, with user deposits and gas activity recorded in April and May 2026. Abandoned? One side calls it fallout from an old incident, while the other accuses them of lying. On-chain data doesn’t lie—see for yourself. $USDT $TRX #CoinDCX #ExchangeSecurity

【🚨 $16 million in crypto assets transferred in suspicious transactions! CoinDCX denies being hacked again, but on-chain investigators uncover red flags!】

⚖️ 币圈安全事件最新动作进群聊

Major Indian crypto exchange CoinDCX is embroiled in controversy.

On October 21, approximately $15.99 million in USDT, along with some TRX, was transferred out of several wallets labeled as belonging to CoinDCX, then split across multiple addresses. On-chain investigators also traced some of the funds to exchanges including Binance, OKX, and Gate.

CoinDCX quickly denied being hacked again, saying that users’ funds are safe.

📌 What’s the controversy about?

CoinDCX says these wallets were compromised in a security incident in July 2025. They were old addresses that had long been decommissioned and were unrelated to current operations.

The problem is that after reviewing transaction records, blockchain analytics firm Bitquery raised questions: some of the addresses in question continued to show fund transfers after they were supposedly “decommissioned,” and were even active on the day of these suspicious transfers.

This raises a key question: if these wallets had long been decommissioned, why do on-chain records show subsequent fund movements?

⚠️ But it’s not yet possible to conclude that the exchange was hacked again.

Blockchain records can show where funds came from and where they went, but transaction records alone cannot establish who controlled the wallets or independently prove whether users suffered any losses.

CoinDCX maintains that users’ funds are safe and that trading services are operating normally. The controversy will require further disclosures from the exchange and verification through an independent investigation.

🔥 What really matters is whether CoinDCX can dispel doubts by providing complete on-chain records and fund reconciliation results.

When it comes to exchange security incidents, suspicious transfers alone aren’t enough to conclude that a platform has been compromised. But neither should the discussion end with a simple statement that “users’ funds are safe.” Transparent, verifiable evidence is what matters when assessing the situation.
#CoinDCX #CoinDCXHack

🚪 An exchange can change its keys, but it can’t replace the old deposit address in your address book

What’s happened over the past couple of days with Indian exchange CoinDCX is worth a look from anyone who deposits funds regularly.

On October 21, on-chain monitoring detected about 15.99 million USDT and 5,783 TRX leaving a TRON deposit address associated with CoinDCX. The funds were then split up and sent to deposit addresses at several major exchanges.

The story took a quick turn:
🔹 A co-founder initially said these were old wallets abandoned after a hack in July 2025, that there had been no new theft, and asked people to “stop spreading rumors.”
🔹 ZachXBT then pointed out that one of the flagged old deposit addresses was still sweeping users’ deposits into the exchange’s current hot wallet as recently as April and May 2026.
🔹 CoinDCX changed its story and acknowledged that the process for sweeping funds from old deposit addresses had failed for a while, causing operational losses. The platform said it would cover the losses itself and credit users, and that funds in cold wallets were safe.
🔹 ZachXBT directly urged users to withdraw their funds. An on-chain observer estimated that only about 3.5 hours passed between “this has nothing to do with us” and “operational losses.”

To me, the most valuable takeaway isn’t about blaming anyone. It’s what one developer said: after a hack, an exchange can rotate its private keys, but it can’t rotate its deposit addresses. Those addresses are already saved in users’ address books, scripts, and all sorts of integrations, so people keep sending funds to them.

So for everyday users, these three habits are more useful than picking sides:
1. Copy the address again from the exchange’s website every time you deposit. Don’t reuse one you saved months ago.
2. For a large deposit, send a small amount first and make sure it arrives before sending the rest.
3. Compare the exchange’s initial statement after an incident with what it says later. The faster its story changes, the more cautious you should be.

The platform ultimately covered the losses, which is good. But trust is often lost in those few hours between “deny it first” and “admit it later.”

When you deposit, do you copy the address again each time, or do you usually use the one in your address book?

#CoinDCX #交易所安全 #链上安全 #USDT

CoinDCX denies being hacked after $16 million in outflows detected

• CoinDCX, India's largest exchange, denied that its operational wallets had been hacked.
• Investigators flagged $16 million in suspicious outflows.
• The funds originated from addresses linked to CoinDCX.

#BinanceSquare #CryptoNews #CoinDCX

$btc $eth

#vlikevn #Titanbot

Source: CoinDesk

The on-chain ledger and the exchange’s account no longer add up $TRX

At 23:35 on October 21 (Beijing time), Salus security researcher Darcy reported that a batch of TRON wallets flagged by Arkham as being associated with CoinDCX transferred out approximately 15.99 million USDT and 5,783.81 TRX, worth about $16 million. The largest single transfer, 15,819,002 USDT, first went to an intermediary address, then was split up and routed to deposit addresses at multiple exchanges.

The exchange’s response: Co-founder Sumit Gupta denied that there had been a new security breach, saying the addresses were created in January 2025, compromised in the hack that July, and deactivated afterward.

The questions being raised: On-chain investigator ZachXBT pointed out that one deposit address beginning with "TQKJQ" was still receiving user deposits in April and May 2026 and interacting with a hot wallet. In a clarification posted on October 22, CoinDCX acknowledged that its deposit-scanning and fund-sweeping process for old addresses had indeed failed for a period of time.

Notably, this isn’t the first time CoinDCX has been embroiled in controversy over address management. In July 2025, the exchange was robbed of around $44 million and subsequently offered a 25% bounty for recovering the funds.

Here’s the bottom line: this isn’t a simple choice between “hacked” and “not hacked.” There’s a clear gap between the exchange’s off-chain explanation and the on-chain records—and that gap itself is the most concerning signal.

#CoinDCX #On-chain security
Not investment advice

An address labeled as CoinDCX transferred out 15.99 million USDT, reigniting the “hack” Rashomon saga.
Founder denies it: The address involved was compromised in an old incident in July 2025, not a current hot wallet.
Translation: The coins are moving, but the breach is old. ZachXBT: If the leak was known, why are 15.99 million U still moving?
The damage is to trust: two theft-related incidents in just over a year—withdrawals have people’s hands shaking.
Was that a proper clarification, or did it make things worse? Reply 1 to trust, 2 to run.

$USDT $BTC $ETH
#CoinDCX #交易所安全 #On-chain Detective
(Source: The Defiant)
⚠️Risk warning: The above is shared for market information purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Investing involves risks; proceed with caution.

【Market Flash】A suspicious movement of 15.99 million USDT, but CoinDCX denies being hacked for a second time. On-chain investigators say that on October 21, an address linked to the exchange transferred approximately 15.99 million USDT and 5,784 TRX. The founder responded that the address in question was exposed in last year’s hack involving approximately $44 million, and that the hacker is reusing an old address—the wallet itself was not compromised. Do you trust the on-chain tracking or the official denial? Share your thoughts in the comments.
$USDT $TRX $BTC
#CoinDCX #链上安全 #Stablecoin
(Source: Coinpedia)
⚠️Risk warning: The above is shared for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Investing involves risks; please exercise caution.

Came across an update from Cointelegraph: Indian exchange CoinDCX acknowledged that its scheduled sweeping process for old addresses hacked in July 2025 was down for a period, resulting in “operational losses” that the platform will bear itself. Deposits from affected users have been credited.

The issue began when about $16 million on-chain was transferred out of old addresses labeled as belonging to CoinDCX, prompting questions. The platform initially said those addresses had long been decommissioned. ZachXBT pointed out that one of them was still receiving user deposits and transferring them to a hot wallet about 10 months after the incident. The CEO later said the investigation was ongoing and assured users they would not lose money.

Key point: this was not a new hot-wallet hack. People were still depositing to old compromised addresses, and the sweeping process had fallen behind. The loss amount has not been disclosed; the platform says active wallets and cold-wallet custody remain unaffected. For deposits, use only the latest addresses shown in the official app or on the website.

#CoinDCX #ExchangeSecurity

On-chain investigator ZachXBT is sounding the alarm again ⚠️

He publicly called out CoinDCX, an Indian crypto exchange, alleging that its co-founder was involved in fraud and advising users to withdraw their funds as soon as possible.

The timeline is pretty bizarre:
🔸 The exchange initially denied that any assets had been stolen
🔸 It later disclosed that around $16 million had been stolen
🔸 On-chain data also showed user deposits flowing to undisclosed wallets

A reminder: Not your keys, not your coins.
Putting large sums on a small exchange means handing the risk over to someone else.

Would you spread your assets across several platforms?

#ZachXBT #CoinDCX #交易所安全 #On-chainData

CoinDCX Security Incident Concerns: Unclear Fund Flows

Onchain Lens revealed that CoinDCX user deposits may have flowed into undisclosed wallets, leaving their destination a mystery and drawing attention to the security incident. Technical analysis should be approached with caution, and changes in key indicators should be monitored.#CoinDCX #SecurityIncident

ZachXBT took aim at CoinDCX again today: On-chain data shows that one of the exchange’s TRON deposit addresses was still sweeping up customer deposits after being hacked in July 2025—and was still receiving gas to keep it running 10 months later. A huge transfer of 15,819,002 USDT on 10/21 was caught red-handed, totaling about $15.99 million. CEO Sumit Gupta denied it overnight: “Those were old addresses generated in January 2025. They were hacked in July and have nothing to do with current operations. Customer funds are safe.” India’s largest exchange was just hit for $44 million last July, and now the old accounts don’t add up. The standard for settling this is simple: prove it on-chain. Explain where these deposits went and reconcile them with proof of reserves; otherwise, “customer funds are safe” is just talk.#交易所安全 #CoinDCX

CoinDCX is up to its old tricks again 🤡

$16 million was transferred out of wallets labeled as belonging to CoinDCX. The exchange responded: "Those were old wallets that were hacked last July. We stopped using them ages ago, and users' funds are safe."

Then ZachXBT dropped on-chain evidence: one of those "decommissioned" wallets was still collecting user deposits 10 months after the hack.

It's like telling the police your stolen car has been sitting in the garage, only for dashcam footage to show you drifting around the parking lot.

The CEO promised that "users won't lose any funds." Let's hope so—but if they can't even keep track of their own wallets, who's keeping the books? 🐕

#CoinDCX #Bitcoin

The exchange says “user funds are safe,” but an on-chain sleuth has posted transfer records. Watching this showdown unfold last night sent chills down my spine.

Here’s what happened. At 23:35 Beijing time on October 21, security researcher Darcy spotted on-chain that CoinDCX, an Indian exchange, had transferred around 15.99 million USDT and 5,783 TRX from its hot wallet and several deposit addresses to an unfamiliar TRON address. The largest transfer was 15.819 million USDT. Soon after the funds arrived, they were split into dozens of smaller transfers and sent to deposit addresses at several exchanges, including Binance, OKX, and Gate—a classic fund-splitting and transfer tactic.

Today (October 22), CoinDCX issued a statement telling everyone not to panic. It said these addresses were created in January 2025 and exposed during last July’s hack, and that the platform had stopped using them long ago. It said the recent activity had nothing to do with the company and that user funds were safe. CEO Sumit Gupta also spoke out, saying the wallets had not been compromised and urging people not to spread rumors.

But on-chain sleuth ZachXBT came right back with evidence that seemed to contradict the claims. He said this supposedly “abandoned address” was still being used by a liquidity market maker for nearly 10 months after last July’s incident. In April and May this year, it was still receiving ordinary user deposits, and it had repeatedly swept funds into CoinDCX’s current main hot wallet. He also asked where the roughly $15.8 million in customer deposits had gone, saying the exchange still hadn’t clearly accounted for them.

The two sides are now sticking to their own versions of events. There’s still no independent third party able to determine whether a new hack took place or whether users suffered losses. CoinDCX says it’s still investigating.

This really is close to home for every retail investor. First, keeping your money on an exchange means handing the keys to someone else—you can only choose whether to trust the exchange when it says your funds are “safe.” Second, this exchange was hacked for around $44 million last July, and it used the same “user funds are safe” line then. Official statements always have an incentive to downplay bad news. Third, if ZachXBT’s evidence is genuine, an address that had been hacked was still receiving user deposits a year later. That could mean your deposited coins went straight into a hacker’s pocket—the most catastrophic kind of failure in an exchange’s risk controls.

Three things you can do right now. First, don’t leave large amounts of assets sitting on an exchange long-term. Move them into your own wallet or a hardware wallet, and keep only the spare funds you need for trading on the exchange. Second, when an exchange publishes a security announcement, don’t just take its word for it—cross-check it against on-chain sleuths like ZachXBT. On-chain data doesn’t take anyone’s side. Third, don’t keep all your coins on a single exchange. If something happens, withdraw as soon as possible—don’t wait for the official story to be neatly wrapped up before you act.

Are your coins mainly on an exchange or in your own wallet right now? Let’s talk in the comments.

#CoinDCX #钱包安全 #交易所安全 #防骗

—— Web3 investor Kai

Disclaimer: This article is for sharing security information and educational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Cryptocurrency trading involves extremely high risks. Please make decisions with caution.