Event Overview

Recently, Trust Wallet, a wallet product under Binance, experienced a security incident related to its browser extension, with attacks concentrated on December 25-26. There are discrepancies between on-chain analysts and the project team regarding the amount of funds affected: ZachXBT initially estimated that approximately “$6 million+” was transferred out, while Specter later identified losses of about $6.7 million on-chain. CZ updated the figures on social media, capping the affected funds at around $7 million, and mainstream media like Cointelegraph also reported “approximately $7 million” as the headline figure. It is confirmed that the incident only affected specific versions of the Trust Wallet browser extension, involving hundreds of users, and has not expanded to all extension users or mobile and desktop clients. After the attack was revealed, Trust Wallet officially confirmed the existence of a security vulnerability and pinpointed it to a specific extension version. CZ clearly stated that the company would provide “full compensation” to all affected users, emphasizing that user funds are “still SAFU.” This statement significantly eased short-term panic against the backdrop of rising FUD sentiment during the Christmas holiday, preventing a larger-scale run and sell-off chain reaction.

Attack Details

From the on-chain data and information disclosed by analysts, the financial losses from this attack are estimated to be between $6 million and $7 million. ZachXBT early on detected a security vulnerability in the Trust Wallet extension, indicating that “over $6 million in assets were drained.” Specter later provided a more detailed breakdown, showing that the largest single wallet among the victim addresses lost about $3.5 million, the second-largest victim lost about $1.4 million, and the third-largest lost approximately $747,000, totaling around $6.7 million, which is the median estimate currently cited. CZ raised this figure to about $7 million, reflecting differences in statistical methods and timing, and the exact amount will need to be disclosed uniformly by Trust Wallet and the security team after a comprehensive count. Regarding the attack technique itself, current public information remains limited. According to ZachXBT and others, the incident is suspected to be related to recent Chrome updates and compatibility or verification flaws in specific versions of the Trust Wallet browser extension, which opened a window for attackers to implant malicious versions or hijack the extension. Specter also pointed out that hackers quickly transferred over $4 million of the stolen assets to several centralized exchanges, attempting to launder and cash out through CEX, and there remains significant uncertainty about whether this portion of funds can be recovered through freezing or cooperation. It is important to emphasize that all official and media statements currently point to issues with “specific browser extension versions,” and there is no evidence showing that the mobile app or other clients have similar vulnerabilities. Essentially, this is a security issue related to the user terminal and extension release chain, rather than a flaw in the on-chain contract itself, with user-side security and plugin ecology being the main risk exposure points revealed by this incident.

Public Sentiment and Emotion

Since the attack occurred during the Christmas holiday, some users whose wallets had been dormant for over a year or two suddenly found their assets emptied in a short time, leading to rapid dissemination of screenshots and help posts about “Trust Wallet being robbed” on social networks, causing FUD sentiment to rise quickly. Initially, the market only saw fragmented information such as “over $6 million stolen” and individual addresses losing $3.5 million at once, making it difficult for users to determine whether it was due to individual operational errors, phishing sites, or systemic vulnerabilities, triggering associative panic about the overall security of self-custody wallets. As Trust Wallet officially confirmed that “a specific version of the browser extension encountered a security vulnerability,” media outlets like Coin Bureau and Cointelegraph quickly followed up, amplifying the impact with headlines like “CONFIRMS SECURITY BREACH” and “approximately $7 million stolen.” However, in the same round of reporting, they also cited CZ’s commitment to “full compensation and SAFU funds,” shifting the tone from pure crisis to “an incident with a safety net.” This reporting angle somewhat stabilized retail investors' basic confidence in the BNB ecosystem and the Binance brand, shifting sentiment from extreme panic to a framework more inclined towards “incident + compensation.”

In terms of impact, the absolute figure of $7 million represents a limited proportion of the current total market capitalization of the cryptocurrency market and the daily trading volume of mainstream coins. However, the incident points to a mainstream wallet product viewed as a “self-custody entry,” and occurring during a holiday time window challenges the narrative that “self-custody is really safer,” which was originally seen as an industry consensus. More notably, the “SAFU safety net” has, on one hand, played a role in stabilizing confidence in the short term, preventing users from panic withdrawing BNB ecosystem assets; on the other hand, it has raised concerns among some observers about the long-term incentive structure—if users and project teams psychologically form the expectation that “if something goes wrong, a big platform will compensate,” it may weaken the emphasis on security practices and self-protection, potentially accumulating greater moral hazard and systemic risks in the future. This has become a frequently discussed point of divergence in current public sentiment discussions.

Funds and Pricing

In terms of fund flow, the direct on-chain escape scale of this attack is estimated to be between $6 million and $7 million, with the main observed path being a concentration of funds from victim addresses to a few intermediary addresses, which were then transferred in batches to several centralized exchanges. On-chain analysis indicates that “over $4 million” has already flowed into CEX accounts. Theoretically, once these assets are sold in the secondary market, they will create some selling pressure in the day’s transactions of the related assets. However, considering that mainstream coins often have daily trading volumes in the tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars, this scale mainly reflects localized depth and short-term slippage, making it difficult to explain major trend reversals solely based on this. More importantly, it triggers a psychological re-evaluation of pricing based on the perception that “funds are no longer absolutely safe.” For the direct valuation of Trust Wallet and the indirect valuation of the BNB ecosystem, this incident primarily brings about an increase in reputation risk premium: although the losses are promised to be fully covered by the project team, the market often discounts wallet products that frequently experience security incidents and are highly tied to a single ecosystem, discounting their “future potential security investments and possible accident compensations” into the current valuation.

In terms of scale, $7 million is just a marginal disturbance compared to the market capitalization of mainstream assets like BNB and BTC, which often exceed tens of billions of dollars and have daily trading volumes in the billions. Price fluctuations are more likely driven by sentiment rather than the actual selling pressure itself. However, when sentiment is continuously amplified through media and social platforms, even if real sell orders are limited, the secondary market may experience an excessive reaction of “first killing the valuation and then slowly repairing it.” Another noteworthy transmission chain is that Trust Wallet, as an important entry point for the BNB Chain and Ethereum ecosystem, has recently been rumored to have potential integration with the new stablecoin U, which saw its circulation reach approximately $58.9 million within 24 hours. This incident may temporarily delay the integration pace of certain assets on the Trust Wallet side, prompting project teams and users to reassess its entry attributes, which may reflect as a slight discount in liquidity expectations and user growth slope. This “entry risk discount” is difficult to quantify precisely in daily prices but will subtly influence the allocation weight of funds across multiple wallets and ecosystems.

Security Landscape

From a longer time scale, the Trust Wallet vulnerability is just one part of the recent wallet security landscape. Recently, Kaspersky disclosed the Stealka malware, which spreads disguised as popular game mods and can steal mnemonic phrases, private keys, and two-factor authentication data from over 80 mainstream cryptocurrency wallets, including MetaMask and Coinbase. This indicates that the focus of attacks is gradually shifting from protocols and contract layers to user terminals and local environments, breaking the traditional perception that “as long as the contract is secure and the code is open source, it is safe.” In this context, Trust Wallet has been questioned by the market over the past year regarding whether its risk control and security capabilities match its launch of contract trading features with up to 100x leverage in collaboration with Aster, and later shifted towards stablecoin and ecosystem integration, with its security and risk management capabilities being under amplified scrutiny. This browser extension vulnerability incident appears to be another stress test under high-pressure scrutiny.

Browser extensions, third-party plugins, and “fake updates” have become the most exposed attack surfaces in the current wallet security system, with the most audit blind spots: extensions often require frequent iterations to adapt to browser updates and new protocols, needing access to a wide range of web content and permissions. If there are link hijacking issues in version management, signature verification, or distribution processes, attackers may exploit this to complete malicious updates or injections in an almost “imperceptible” manner. In the open-source community, code audits typically focus on contracts and core libraries, while systematic reviews of browser ecosystems, dependency chains, CI/CD pipelines, and other aspects are far from sufficient. On the other hand, “self-custody + open-source wallets” is ideally the state in the decentralized narrative, yet it presents a structural contradiction with ordinary users' limited security capabilities: most users lack the ability to identify malicious extensions, verify update sources, and isolate sensitive environments, yet they are encouraged to entrust all assets to self-custody wallets. Once vulnerabilities occur at the terminal or extension level, losses are often irreversible. This incident is not technically unprecedented, but because it occurred in a leading wallet and was backed by a centralized giant for compensation, this structural contradiction has been more intuitively presented to the market.

Bull-Bear Game

Market interpretations surrounding this incident have formed a relatively clear dividing line between bullish and bearish logic. From a bullish perspective, first, the scale of the incident is between $6 million and $7 million, which is manageable relative to the market capitalization of mainstream assets and the overall market size; secondly, current indications show that there are no underlying chain or systemic contract-level security vulnerabilities, but rather issues with specific browser extension versions; more critically, Trust Wallet and its backing Binance system have clearly committed to providing full compensation to all affected users, and CZ’s “SAFU funds” wording has proven to have strong confidence-repairing capabilities in past crises. Therefore, bulls are more inclined to view this as a localized security incident rather than a disruptive blow to the fundamentals of the BNB ecosystem, expecting that after technical reviews and compensation implementation, the event will be absorbed by the market similarly to past exchange theft incidents, experiencing short-term discounts before gradually being absorbed.

The bearish logic emphasizes "frequency" and "cumulative risk." On one hand, mainstream wallets have frequently exposed security issues over the past year or two, ranging from browser extensions, phishing sites to malware, all pointing to the same fact: as the scale of crypto assets rises, attackers' profit expectations increase, leading them to invest more resources in discovering and exploiting vulnerabilities at the terminal level. On the other hand, the close binding of Trust Wallet to the BNB ecosystem means that every security incident will be interpreted by the outside world as a renewed questioning of Binance's overall risk control and technical governance capabilities, resulting in an additional discount on the pricing of BNB and related assets. Bears believe that even if the scale of a single incident is not large, the rising frequency and the path of “always being backed by a big platform” will be reflected in the price as a higher long-term risk premium and volatility. From a trading perspective, the characteristic of the phase where “the frequency of security incidents is rising but the backing ability is still present” provides exploitable emotional material for short-term speculative funds: amplifying panic when the news first breaks, then betting on a rebound after voices from CZ and others, repeatedly impacting an already shallow order book, causing prices to overshoot under news-driven conditions rather than being dominated by fundamental changes. This game model continuously tests market depth and the risk control capabilities of market makers.

Market Outlook

Judgments on future trends and risk pricing largely depend on whether several key conditions can be met. First, if Trust Wallet can provide a relatively complete technical review in the short term, detailing the specific chain of events leading to the vulnerability, repair measures, and subsequent defense strategies, while also advancing substantial compensation for affected users, then the market is more likely to view this incident as a “controllable lesson,” with price movements primarily reflecting phase-based emotional fluctuations rather than evolving into a long-term discount. Conversely, if technical details remain opaque, attack paths are unclear, or similar attacks occur in the following weeks, this incident could escalate from a “case” to a systemic trust crisis regarding the entire wallet distribution and terminal security system, having more profound impacts on the BNB ecosystem and the self-custody narrative.

From an observational perspective, three key indicators can be tracked to dynamically calibrate judgments: First, the price performance and on-chain activity of Trust Wallet itself and highly correlated BNB assets. If there is a quick recovery and restoration of user interaction after a short-term pullback, it indicates that the market still has strong trust in its security rectification and backing capabilities. Second, the tracking and recovery progress of stolen funds on-chain, including whether portions entering centralized exchanges have been effectively frozen and whether any assets have been recovered, will influence market expectations regarding the “recoverability” of the incident. Third, whether major mainstream wallets take the opportunity to simultaneously raise security standards, such as enhancing extension signature verification, strengthening terminal environment detection, and updating security education documents. If the industry undergoes a collective upgrade, it will help transform this incident into an overall advancement in security practices rather than a negative example for a single brand.

In the medium to long term, this incident reiterates several unavoidable topics in the wallet space and the BNB ecosystem: First, security investments must be proactive and continuous, not squeezed by user growth and business expansion; second, open-source and audits need to extend from contract code to browser extensions, dependency chains, and release processes; third, terminal security education is a prerequisite for the self-custody narrative, not an optional accessory; fourth, while compensation expectations may stabilize confidence in the short term, from a pricing perspective, they will ultimately be converted into platform risk premiums, discounted by the market into every valuation fluctuation. Finding a balance among these dimensions will determine the weight and risk budget of wallet assets and the BNB ecosystem in investors' portfolios.

Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh

OKX benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。