Avici Token Drops 39% as Hackers Withdraw Up to $1 Million from Solana Neobank

cryptonews.ruPublished on 2026-08-29Last updated on 2026-08-29

Abstract

Avici, a Solana-based neobank, is investigating a security breach that occurred on August 28, resulting in the complete draining of user funds. Preliminary estimates suggest losses between $600,000 and over $1 million. The breach was flagged after a user reported suspicious activity involving the manipulation of the platform's authorization and collateral programs. Following the news, Avici's native AVICI token plummeted approximately 39% in 24 hours to around $0.2175. The hacker's wallet contained about 10,005 SOL (roughly $1.07 million at the time) and $11,600 in stablecoins. Real-time tracking indicates 125 user accounts were affected, with individual losses ranging from about $9 to over $26,000 in USDT. Avici acknowledged a "card withdrawal issue" on platform X, stating it is monitoring the situation and working with partners to resolve it, but has not disclosed details on reimbursement. The AVICI token is now down about 96% from its all-time high. The incident is part of a series of recent crypto exploits, including attacks on The Sandbox, MANTRA, and Moonwell.

Avici, a neobank built on the Solana blockchain, is investigating a security breach that completely drained user funds on August 28. Preliminary data suggests the damage could range from $600,000 to over $1 million.

Following the hack, the AVICI token of Avici lost approximately 39% of its value in a single day.

What Damage Was Caused by the Avici Hack?

Avici, offering banking services on the Solana blockchain such as using funds on cryptocurrency-backed cards, confirmed a "card withdrawal issue" but did not disclose how much was lost or whether users would be reimbursed.

The AVICI token, the neobank's native asset, plummeted sharply after news of the security breach.

The hack was first flagged by a post from user SolanaFloor on X. Reports indicate the hacker first triggered the SubmitSignatures function in Avici's authorization program, then invoked AddCollateralAdmin in the Avici collateral program, and finally executed WithdrawCollateralAsset to withdraw the funds.

The attacker's wallet contained about 10,005 SOL, worth roughly $1.07 million at the time, along with approximately $11,600 in stablecoins. Blockchain analyst STACC created a real-time tracer that revealed 125 different user accounts were affected. Amounts stolen from each account ranged from about $9 to over $26,000 in USDT.

Reports suggest hackers stole between $600,000 and over $1 million from user accounts. Avici stated on platform X that it is monitoring the situation and added it is working with partners to resolve the issue and will share further information once available.

Did the Hack Affect AVICI?

Following this news, the AVICI token fell roughly 39% over 24 hours to around $0.2175. During the day, the price fluctuated between a low of $0.2189 and a high of $0.4459.

AVICI peaked at $7.61 on November 26, 2025, meaning the token is now approximately 96% below its all-time high. According to CoinMarketCap, its market cap is about $3.39 million, with roughly 12.9 million tokens in circulation and around 12,400 holders.

In the same week as the Avici hack, The Sandbox decided to reimburse bridge hack victims on a 1:1 basis after a theft that, according to Cryptopolitan, cost holders roughly $697,000.

Meanwhile, MANTRA released a report on an attack worth about $3.6 million but did not present a fund recovery plan. Days earlier, Cryptopolitan reported an attack on the Moonwell lending protocol where up to $9 million was stolen through price manipulation.

Trending Cryptos

Related Questions

QWhat security breach is being investigated by the neobank Avici, built on Solana?

AAvici is investigating a security breach that occurred on August 28th, which resulted in the complete draining of user funds, with estimated losses ranging from $600,000 to over $1 million.

QHow did the price of Avici's native token, AVICI, react to the news of the security breach?

AFollowing the news of the security breach, the AVICI token lost approximately 39% of its value within a day, trading around $0.2175.

QAccording to the analysis of STACC, how many user accounts were affected by the hack on Avici?

AAccording to the real-time tracing system created by blockchain analyst STACC, 125 different user accounts were affected by the hack on Avici.

QHow much cryptocurrency did the attacker's wallet contain after the hack, according to the article?

AThe attacker's wallet contained about 10,005 SOL, valued at roughly $1.07 million at the time, plus approximately $11,600 in stablecoins.

QWhat recent security incidents involving other projects are mentioned alongside the Avici hack in the article?

AThe article mentions several other recent incidents: The Sandbox reimbursed victims of a bridge hack with a 1:1 ratio after a $697,000 theft; MANTRA reported an attack involving about $3.6 million without a recovery plan; and Cryptopolitan reported an attack on the Moonwell lending protocol that stole up to $9 million through price manipulation.

Related Reads

How Can Bitcoin Resist Quantum Computers? A Comparative Analysis of Three Lattice-Based Signature Schemes

This report from Blockstream Research analyzes three lattice-based signature schemes as quantum-resistant candidates for Bitcoin, focusing on Dilithium, Falcon, and the now-withdrawn Hawk. Core evaluation criteria include on-chain costs (combined size of public key and signature), implementation complexity, deployment risks, and potential for integration with Bitcoin's existing infrastructure like BIP-32 hierarchical deterministic wallets. Key Findings: * **Dilithium** is praised for its design simplicity, using only integer operations, making secure implementation easier. However, it has the largest size (5,261 bytes for security level 3). * **Falcon** offers the most compact signatures and the fastest verification. Its main drawback—platform-dependent floating-point operations in signing—can be mitigated with a slower, deterministic integer-based implementation. The report recommends **Falcon-1024** (security level 5) for its safety margin. * **Hawk**, which aimed for a better balance, was withdrawn after a cryptographic attack revealed a structural flaw that halved its estimated security. The report concludes that Falcon-1024 is the most suitable lattice-based choice for Bitcoin, pending the finalization of its NIST FN-DSA standard. In the short term, it still recommends hash-based signatures (like SPHINCS+) as a lower-risk transitional solution, with future hybrid deployments as a possibility.

marsbit23m ago

How Can Bitcoin Resist Quantum Computers? A Comparative Analysis of Three Lattice-Based Signature Schemes

marsbit23m ago

Ripple (XRP) Company Announces Plans for Major Future Update

Ripple (XRP) has announced a four-phase plan to prepare the XRP Ledger (XRPL) for future security threats posed by quantum computers. The company's senior director of engineering stated the goal is to build necessary infrastructure before quantum computers become a direct threat, aiming to minimize impact on existing systems, user assets, and network operations. The plan begins with identifying potential quantum vulnerabilities within XRPL, followed by testing quantum-resistant cryptographic methods. The next phase involves parallel testing of existing security mechanisms and new quantum-resistant solutions to ensure reliability and prevent disruption for users and applications. The final phase would involve transitioning the XRPL to more comprehensive, quantum-resistant security standards if the technology matures. Ripple is also developing contingency plans for a faster-than-expected advancement of quantum computing, which could accelerate the transition timeline. A current XRPL feature allowing users to change the keys controlling their accounts without altering the accounts themselves is seen as a potential advantage in any future migration. However, Ripple cannot unilaterally change transaction validation rules or network-wide cryptographic standards; such updates require coordination and approval from independent validators via XRPL's governance process. While quantum computers are not yet capable of breaking the cryptography used by major blockchains like Bitcoin or XRPL, developers across the industry are already evaluating transition scenarios to quantum-resistant algorithms due to the long-term risks they pose to public-key cryptography.

cryptonews.ru1h ago

Ripple (XRP) Company Announces Plans for Major Future Update

cryptonews.ru1h ago

Trading

Spot

Hot Articles

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of SOL (SOL) are presented below.

活动图片