{"id":33326,"date":"2026-10-30T11:38:02","date_gmt":"2026-10-30T11:38:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/investx.fr\/en\/2026\/10\/30\/binance-hacker-holds-more-bitcoin-than-coinbase-treasury\/"},"modified":"2026-10-30T11:38:08","modified_gmt":"2026-10-30T11:38:08","slug":"binance-hacker-holds-more-bitcoin-than-coinbase-treasury","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/investx.fr\/en\/crypto-news\/binance-hacker-holds-more-bitcoin-than-coinbase-treasury\/","title":{"rendered":"Binance Hacker Holds More Bitcoin Than Coinbase’s Corporate Treasury"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

A wallet linked to the historic Binance<\/strong> hack now holds more Bitcoin<\/strong> than one of the largest publicly listed crypto exchanges in the world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The numbers are staggering: 18,270 BTC<\/strong> and over 500,000 ETH<\/strong> sitting dormant in identified wallets, untouched for years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How does a hacker manage to hold onto a fortune of this scale without triggering market-wide alerts \u2014 and what does this situation reveal about the limits of on-chain tracing<\/strong>?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

18,270 BTC: A Treasury That Outpaces Coinbase<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Early on Friday morning, on-chain analysts confirmed that the address associated with the 2019 Binance hack<\/strong> held 18,270 BTC<\/strong>, a figure worth roughly half a billion dollars at current price levels. That amount officially surpasses the declared corporate Bitcoin<\/a> reserves of Coinbase \u2014 a striking symbol for a company that ranks among the most regulated players in the crypto industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Beyond Bitcoin, the wallet also holds a stock of Ether exceeding 500,000 ETH<\/strong>, making it one of the most heavily loaded non-institutional wallets in the entire ecosystem. For context, very few DeFi<\/strong> protocols or crypto funds carry ETH exposure of this magnitude without deploying it through staking or active yield strategies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These funds have remained largely untouched since the original hack, which significantly complicates both tracing efforts and any potential seizure. US and international authorities have made multiple attempts to freeze assets linked to the breach, but the fragmentation of wallets and the use of mixers<\/strong> have made any legal action exceptionally difficult to pursue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Binance<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Why Have These Funds Still Not Moved?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The prolonged inactivity of these wallets has puzzled the crypto community for years. Several theories are circulating among analysts: fear of immediate detection the moment any on-chain movement occurs, waiting for a more favorable regulatory window, or the sheer logistical complexity of laundering a sum this large without triggering alarm bells across centralized exchanges<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Blockchain surveillance tools such as Chainalysis<\/strong> and Elliptic<\/strong><\/a> keep these addresses under constant monitoring. Any significant transfer to an exchange \u2014 even a decentralized one \u2014 would almost instantly trigger alerts within compliance teams. It is precisely this on-chain visibility that turns these BTC into assets that are virtually untouchable for whoever holds them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The paradox is striking: owning this much Bitcoin can become a burden when every satoshi is being tracked. The hacker finds themselves in a position where their fortune is both colossal and nearly impossible to mobilize \u2014 a gilded prison built by the very transparency of the blockchain<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What This Reveals About Exchange Security in 2025<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The 2019 Binance hack<\/strong> remains one of the most significant breaches in the history of centralized exchanges. It prompted the platform to dramatically overhaul its security protocols, most notably through the deployment of the SAFU Fund<\/strong> (Secure Asset Fund for Users), an emergency reserve designed to cover user losses in the event of a major incident.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet the continued existence of this active wallet serves as a reminder that stolen funds never truly disappear \u2014 they remain visible, traceable, but out of reach for as long as their holder makes no attempt to convert them. This reality is pushing regulators to demand ever greater rigor from exchanges when it comes to KYC\/AML<\/strong> compliance and the monitoring of suspicious inbound flows.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For institutional investors, this case also raises an unexpected benchmarking question: when a malicious actor holds more BTC than a company listed on the Nasdaq, it raises serious questions about the concentration of wealth<\/strong> within the crypto ecosystem \u2014 and about the transparency standards that the market has every right to demand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Related articles :<\/h3>\n\n\n\n