4000 BTC was transferred, worth approximately 320 million dollars; subsequently, 3400 BTC was returned.

This unusual event that occurred on the Liquid Network seems to be concluding with a "white hat discovering vulnerabilities and recovering funds" approach.

However, what is truly noteworthy is not how much has been recovered, but:

Why was a batch of L-BTC that should not have existed ultimately able to be exchanged for real BTC?

This may be more alarming than a typical wallet theft.

In short

Approximately 4000 BTC was transferred out of the Liquid Federation wallet, worth about 320 million dollars.

Liquid then suspended bridging and requested exchanges to suspend L-BTC deposits and withdrawals.

The party that transferred the funds claims to be "white hats" and returned around 3400 BTC after the vulnerability was fixed.

Currently, about 598.5 BTC remains unrecovered, worth approximately 47 million dollars.

The core of the incident is suspected to be related to a vulnerability in the Elements software, rather than traditional theft of private keys.

Market focus will subsequently shift to: Can the remaining funds be recovered, when will Liquid restart, and can trust in L-BTC be restored?

How was 4000 BTC transferred away?

On September 6, Liquid discovered that approximately 4000 BTC had been transferred from the Federation wallet.

This number is very sensitive—at the time, the wallet held about 4200 BTC, meaning approximately 95% of the BTC reserves were transferred away at once.

Subsequently, Liquid suspended bridging nodes and related operations, and some exchanges also halted L-BTC deposits and withdrawals.

However, this incident has a peculiar aspect:

Liquid stated that the relevant signature keys were not stolen.

The issue may lie in the earlier asset verification stage.

The real issue: Why could 4000 L-BTC be exchanged for 4000 BTC?

Understanding this incident hinges on clarifying how L-BTC operates.

In simple terms:

BTC enters Liquid → receives L-BTC → L-BTC destroyed → exchanged back to BTC through Peg-out.

Under normal circumstances, the system must ensure that the L-BTC used for exchange is real, valid, and legitimately generated.

However, in this incident, the attacker seems to have exploited a vulnerability in the Elements software to obtain approximately 4000 L-BTC, which were then exchanged for about 4000 BTC through the normal Peg-out process.

In other words, the issue may not be:

"The hacker stole the keys to the BTC wallet."

But rather:

"The system treated L-BTC that should not exist as legitimate assets."

This is also the most concerning aspect of this incident.

Why did the attacker return 3400 BTC?

The situation then took a turn.

The party that transferred the funds claimed to be "white hats" and communicated with Blockstream through on-chain messages.

They demanded that the relevant vulnerabilities be fixed before returning the funds.

After Blockstream confirmed that the bridging nodes had been repaired, the party returned approximately 3400 BTC, which accounts for about 85% of the transferred funds.

However, about 598.5 BTC remains unreturned.

Therefore, whether this can be completely defined as a "white hat operation" remains controversial.

The real challenge for Liquid is trust

For Liquid, the recovery of 3400 BTC is certainly good news.

But the greatest value of L-BTC is that the market believes:

1 L-BTC ≈ 1 BTC.

If a system vulnerability can allow invalid L-BTC to eventually be exchanged for real BTC, then the market needs to reconsider not just "Is the wallet secure?"

But rather:

What kind of L-BTC is deemed valid by the system?

This is also a risk that is most easily overlooked in sidechain and cross-chain infrastructure.

Next, three questions to focus on

First, can the remaining 598.5 BTC be recovered?

This will directly determine the final actual loss.

Second, when will Liquid return to normal?

Before bridging and trading can resume, the market needs to see a complete vulnerability fix and security verification.

Third, can trust in L-BTC be restored?

This may be the variable with the greatest impact.

Because what users are truly concerned about is not "How much was recovered this time?" but rather:

Will there be a second occurrence in the future?

Conclusion

This Liquid incident does not necessarily mean that there is a problem with the BTC sidechain model itself, but it once again proves:

The security of crypto assets has never been solely about private key security.

From BTC custody, L-BTC issuance, to Peg-out exchanges, any one link being vulnerable can ultimately affect the real BTC reserves.

3400 BTC has already returned, but what will really determine whether Liquid can regain trust is whether they can answer one question:

Why were 4000 BTC able to be exchanged in the first place, and how can it be ensured that this won't happen again?

 

If you are also interested in the Crypto market and want to participate in trading or asset allocation, you can register through the following exclusive channels and enjoy discounts:

Binance: Register through the exclusive link and fill in the invitation code aicoin668 to enjoy a 10% rebate.   

Registration link:https://jump.do/zh-Hans/xlink-proxy?id=3

Welfare group:https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=gmLgwvKD1

OKX: Register through AiCoin's exclusive link for a permanent 20% rebate.   

Registration link:https://jump.do/zh-Hans/xlink?checkProxy=true&proxyId=2

Welfare group:https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ

Bitget: Register through AiCoin's exclusive channel for a 10% transaction fee rebate.

Registration link:   https://jump.do/zh-Hans/xlink-proxy?id=6

Welfare group:https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N63yYYKQ

You are also welcome to join AiCoin related communities to obtain more information about new coins on exchanges and earning opportunities:   

Official Telegram community:https://t.me/aicoincn

AiCoin Chinese Twitter:https://x.com/AiCoinzh

The content of this article represents only the author's personal views and does not reflect the platform's position. The opinions, conclusions, and suggestions in the text are for investor reference only and do not constitute any investment advice related to this platform. The market has risks; investment requires caution.

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。