Trust Wallet Reveals Number of Victims from the Hack and the Compensation Problem

RBK-cryptoPublished on 2025-12-29Last updated on 2025-12-29

Abstract

Trust Wallet CEO Eowyn Chen revealed that last week's hack affected over 2,500 user accounts. However, the service has received approximately 5,000 compensation claims, indicating a significant number of fraudulent or duplicate requests, which is slowing down the payout process. The hack occurred on the night of December 26 due to a vulnerability in the browser extension version 2.68. An update (v2.69) was released, and the company promised to cover the estimated $7 million in losses. The verification of claims is being conducted alongside the technical investigation, prioritizing accuracy over speed. Trust Wallet is working with Google to obtain Chrome audit logs and is conducting a detailed security check on remote devices. In a related context, a recent Chainalysis report noted that 2025 has seen over 158,000 personal wallet compromises, resulting in $713 million in losses.

Trust Wallet head Eowyn Chen reported that last week's crypto wallet hack affected over 2,500 accounts. However, she stated that the service received twice as many compensation claims, which is slowing down payouts as it takes time to weed out fraudulent requests.

The Trust Wallet hack occurred on the night of December 26. Developers had previously acknowledged a vulnerability in the browser wallet version 2.68, released an update to version 2.69, and promised to compensate for the damage, which they estimated at $7 million.

"To date, we have identified 2,596 addresses affected by the hack. From this group, we have received about 5,000 claims, indicating a significant number of false or duplicate attempts to access victim compensation," wrote Chen.

The verification of claims is being conducted in parallel with the technical investigation of the incident. Chen noted that this has proven to be a complex task, so processing the requests is taking longer than affected users expected. The priority remains the accurate verification of wallet owners, not speed.

The day before, Chen reported that Google is assisting in the investigation—the crypto wallet team hopes to obtain audit logs (access request logs) from the Chrome browser. Also, the Trust Wallet security service will conduct a detailed check of the devices of employees working remotely.

A week earlier, Chainalysis estimated that the total damage from hackers' actions in 2025 exceeded $3.4 billion. This year, 158,000 cases of personal wallet compromises were recorded with a total damage of $713 million (compared to $1.5 billion the previous year), affecting over 80,000 users.

Bitcoin's price updated its weekly high. What happened to cryptocurrencies

Memecoin market cap plunged by $100 billion in 2025. CoinGecko report

"Overcoming the psychological barrier." What will happen to Bitcoin this week

Related Questions

QHow many user accounts were affected by the Trust Wallet hack according to CEO Eowyn Chen?

AOver 2,500 accounts were affected by the Trust Wallet hack.

QWhat was the estimated financial damage from the Trust Wallet security breach?

AThe estimated financial damage from the hack was $7 million.

QWhy is the compensation process taking longer than expected for Trust Wallet users?

AThe process is taking longer because the service received about 5,000 claims for 2,596 affected addresses, indicating a significant number of fraudulent or duplicate claims that require time to filter out.

QWhich specific version of the Trust Wallet browser extension contained the vulnerability that was exploited?

AThe vulnerability was in the browser wallet version 2.68.

QWhat is the total estimated damage from hacker activities in 2025, as reported by Chainalysis?

AAccording to Chainalysis, the cumulative damage from hacker activities in 2025 exceeded $3.4 billion.

Related Reads

Why Pricing Social Interactions is Doomed to Fail?

Titled "Why Putting a Price on Social Interaction Is Doomed to Fail," this article critiques attempts to monetize social networks directly through SocialFi models, arguing their inevitable failure stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of media dynamics. Using Marshall McLuhan's theory of "hot" and "cold" media, the author posits that social networks are inherently "cold" media. Their value isn't contained in individual posts but is co-created through user participation, interpretation, and fragmented, ongoing interaction (e.g., replies, shares). This ambiguity and need for user involvement are core to their function. The article asserts that SocialFi projects like Friend.tech failed because introducing real-time, tradable financial pricing (a definitive "hot" signal) into this "cold" environment doesn't add a layer—it replaces the medium's essence. The unambiguous price signal overshadows and nullifies the nuanced, participatory social signal. Users become traders, not participants, and when speculative profits vanish, the underlying social ecosystem—never genuinely cultivated—collapses entirely. This principle extends beyond crypto. The author argues platforms like Twitter have gradually "heated up" through metrics (likes, retweets counts, algorithmically defined value), shifting users from participants to performers and eroding organic engagement. The solution isn't to abandon capital but to manage its entry point. Successful models like Substack, Patreon, or Bandcamp allow capital to "condense" at specific, isolated nodes (e.g., subscriptions, one-time payments) without permeating and "heating" every social interaction. They preserve the core "cold," participatory medium while enabling monetization at designated boundaries. The NFT boom and bust serves as a stark parallel: the ancient "cold" medium of collecting (valued for story, community, gradual accumulation) was rapidly destroyed by platforms that introduced real-time floor prices, rarity scores, and trading dashboards, transforming collectors into speculators and vaporizing cultural value when prices fell. The core lesson: "Liquidity equals heat." Injecting high liquidity and definitive pricing into a "cold" participatory medium doesn't optimize it; it fundamentally alters and destroys its value-creating mechanism. The future lies not in pricing every social gesture but in finding precise, non-invasive points for capital to condense without overheating the entire ecosystem.

marsbit7m ago

Why Pricing Social Interactions is Doomed to Fail?

marsbit7m ago

Jensen Huang's CMU Speech: In the AI Era, Don't Just Watch, Build

Jensen Huang, CEO of NVIDIA and a first-generation immigrant, delivered the commencement address to Carnegie Mellon University's class of 2026. He shared his personal journey from a humble background to founding NVIDIA, emphasizing resilience, learning from failure, and the responsibility that comes with leadership. Huang framed the present moment as the dawn of the AI revolution, a shift he believes is more profound than previous computing waves. He described AI as fundamentally resetting computing—moving from human-written software to machines that understand, reason, and use tools. This will create a new industry for generating intelligence and transform every sector. While acknowledging AI's potential to automate tasks and displace some jobs, Huang distinguished between the *tasks* of a job and its core *purpose*. He argued AI will augment human capability, not replace humans. The real risk, he stated, is not AI itself, but people being left behind by those who effectively use AI. He presented AI as a generational opportunity for massive infrastructure investment—in chip factories, data centers, energy grids, and advanced manufacturing—that could re-industrialize nations like the U.S. and bridge the digital divide by making computing and intelligent tools accessible to all. Huang called for a balanced approach: advancing AI safely and responsibly, establishing prudent policies, ensuring broad access, and encouraging universal participation. He urged the graduates not to fear the future but to engage with optimism and ambition, reminding them of CMU's motto, "My heart is in the work." His core message was clear: this is their moment to actively build and shape the AI-powered future, not merely observe it.

marsbit1h ago

Jensen Huang's CMU Speech: In the AI Era, Don't Just Watch, Build

marsbit1h ago

The Era Has Arrived Where Human Writers Must Prove They Are Not Machines

The article describes an era where AI-generated content is flooding the market, forcing human authors to prove they are not machines. It begins with the example of dozens of AI-written, error-ridden biographies of Henry Kissinger appearing on Amazon within hours of his death, a pattern repeated for other deceased celebrities and even living experts who find fraudulent books under their names. This spam content has exploded, with monthly new book releases on platforms like Amazon reaching 300,000 by late 2025. The issue spans genres, from suspiciously high proportions of AI-written teen romance and self-help books to dangerous, AI-generated foraging guides containing lethal advice. The platforms' automated review systems, designed to catch plagiarism and banned words, are ill-equipped to detect AI-generated text that avoids these pitfalls while being nonsensical or fraudulent. The problem has infiltrated traditional publishing. A major publisher, Hachette, had to recall a bestselling horror novel after AI detection tools suggested 78% of its content was machine-generated. An acclaimed European philosophy book was later revealed to be entirely written by AI under a fake author persona. In response, authors are fighting back. At the 2026 London Book Fair, 10,000 writers published a blank book titled "Don't Steal This Book" containing only their signatures—using emptiness as a protest weapon in an age of AI overproduction. Initiatives like the "Human Author Certification" program have emerged, ironically placing the burden on humans to prove their work is not machine-made. The article warns of a vicious cycle: AI-generated low-quality books pollute the data used to train future AI models, leading to "model collapse" and an ever-worsening flood of digital waste, eroding trust in publishing and devaluing human creativity.

marsbit1h ago

The Era Has Arrived Where Human Writers Must Prove They Are Not Machines

marsbit1h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片