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

Agent Race Ends, Super Workbench Takes Over

The era of fragmented AI agents is ending. Over the past month, China's tech giants—Tencent, Alibaba, and ByteDance—have simultaneously shifted strategy: instead of launching new, standalone AI agents, they are consolidating their various agent projects into unified "super workbenches." Tencent integrated its QClaw teams into WorkBuddy, a strategic product hailed as a potential third flagship after QQ and WeChat. Alibaba is merging its QoderWork, Wukong, and MuleRun agents into a new "Qianwen Office" platform under DingTalk's leadership. ByteDance rebranded its TRAE SOLO coding agent to TRAE Work, signaling a broader focus on workflow collaboration. This convergence marks a pivotal industry consensus. The initial exploration phase, where companies rapidly built numerous overlapping agents for different scenarios, proved costly and inefficient. With open-source tools eroding technical barriers, competition has shifted from agent creation to resource consolidation and cost control. Historically, platform wars are won not by creating more products, but by simplifying them—as seen with browsers unifying web access and super-apps consolidating services. Now, the "super workbench" aims to become the unified AI entry point for work. This reflects a deeper market realization: the primary audience for AI is no longer just programmers (a market in the tens of millions) but all knowledge workers (a market of billions). The real opportunity lies in augmenting everyday tasks—managing emails, documents, data, and meetings—across the entire workday. The core battleground is becoming control over the primary AI entry point that employees use daily. Tencent's WorkBuddy leverages WeChat and Tencent Docs; Alibaba's Qianwen Office taps into DingTalk's organizational data; ByteDance's TRAE Work integrates with Feishu's workflows. Whoever owns this "super workbench" gains strategic control over orchestrating enterprise data and APIs. This shift is redefining enterprise software. Traditional SaaS applications, valued for their user interfaces, will recede into the background. Their core functionalities will be exposed as standardized "Skills" or APIs for the super workbench's agents to invoke. Software value will shift from selling user seats to charging based on API calls and outcomes delivered. The evolution of agents is moving through clear stages: first as novel standalone products, then as consolidated primary work entry points, and finally as pervasive, invisible capabilities embedded into the digital fabric. The recent moves by major tech firms signal the transition from the first stage into the second, accelerating toward the third. In the end, the most successful agent technology may become invisible—like electricity or the HTTP protocol—a fundamental, unnamed infrastructure powering work itself.

marsbit6m ago

Agent Race Ends, Super Workbench Takes Over

marsbit6m ago

Michael Saylor: 110 Reasons to Oppose BIP-110

Michael Saylor presents 110 arguments against Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) 110, a soft fork aimed at restricting certain non-monetary data storage uses (like inscriptions) on the Bitcoin blockchain. He acknowledges the proponents' valid concerns—such as node costs, fee pressure, and preserving Bitcoin's monetary focus—but fundamentally disagrees with the proposed solution. Saylor argues that BIP 110 represents a dangerous precedent of using consensus rules to enforce value judgments on transaction validity, moving away from Bitcoin's core principles of neutrality and permissionless innovation. His key objections are organized into eleven categories: 1) It violates neutrality and hard consensus by banning currently valid transactions. 2) It fails to meet the high burden of proof required for a consensus change, lacking concrete data on the alleged crisis. 3) Its seven bundled technical restrictions are overly broad, targeting generic script functionalities and blocking future upgrade paths. 4) It sacrifices compatibility and future optionality by closing off designed upgrade hooks. 5) Its temporary rules add significant complexity (grandfathering, expiry states) without sufficient justification. 6) The economic and security impacts, particularly on miner revenue and fee markets, are uncertain and unmodeled. 7) Superior, market-based tools (fee markets, relay/mining policies) already exist to manage blockchain load. 8) It stifles innovation by creating a chilling effect for developers. 9) Its modified activation mechanism (55% threshold, forced signaling) is aggressive and risks network splits. 10) The precedent it sets—using consensus to suppress disliked but legal uses—is more dangerous than the problem it aims to solve. 11) A better path exists: improving measurements, refining resource-based policies, and allowing market forces to work. Saylor concludes that Bitcoin's strength lies in its neutral rules, open markets, and hard consensus. Changing these foundational elements to target specific use cases is an unnecessary and risky "iatrogenic" intervention. He advocates for guarding Bitcoin's neutrality rather than acting as its redeemer.

marsbit22m ago

Michael Saylor: 110 Reasons to Oppose BIP-110

marsbit22m ago

Trading

Spot
活动图片