Scammers Stole Personal Data of Ledger Crypto Wallet Users

RBK-cryptoPubblicato 2026-01-05Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-01-05

Introduzione

Summary: Cryptocurrency hardware wallet manufacturer Ledger has suffered another data breach, this time through its e-commerce payment partner, Global-e. According to crypto investigator ZachXBT, the incident compromised users' personal data, including names and contact information. An email shared by ZachXBT, reportedly sent to affected users, stated that Global-e detected suspicious activity and that an unauthorized party had accessed certain personal data. At the time of reporting, Ledger had not yet released an official statement with details of the incident. This is not Ledger's first breach; in 2020, the data of over 270,000 customers was compromised, which led to years of targeted phishing attempts against users. The summary also notes that the American exchange Coinbase faced a major data breach in 2025, causing an estimated hundreds of millions of dollars in damage.

Another data breach of users of the popular crypto wallet manufacturer Ledger has occurred through the payment system Global-e. As reported by crypto detective ZachXBT, the incident resulted in the disclosure of customers' personal data, including names and contact information.

ZachXBT shared a fragment of an email received by some users:

"Suspicious activity was detected in a part of our network at Global-e. We took steps to isolate and secure our systems. We engaged independent digital forensics experts to investigate the incident and determined that there was unauthorized access to some personal data, including name and contact information."

No official statement from Ledger with details of the incident has been published at the time of writing.

As stated on the crypto wallet manufacturer's website, Global-e offers e-commerce solutions. Since October 9, 2023, Ledger has been using the Global-e platform to sell Ledger products through the official Ledger website.

In 2020, the company already reported a data compromise of over 270 thousand wallet buyers, including delivery addresses, their phone numbers, and email addresses. It was reported that after the incident, the personal information of 4,865 users from Russia, among others, became publicly available.

After the incident, for several years, Ledger users received phishing mailings electronically and even in paper form. The goal of these letters was to obtain additional information that could lead to the theft of cryptocurrency.

A major user data leak in 2025 also affected the American crypto exchange Coinbase, where, according to expert estimates, the damage amounted to several hundred million dollars.

What will happen to the regulation of the cryptocurrency market in Russia in 2026

Bitcoin turned 17 years old

Bitcoin as 'digital gold': what an investor should know

Domande pertinenti

QWhat company experienced a recent data breach affecting users of its crypto wallet?

ALedger, the manufacturer of a popular crypto wallet, experienced a data breach through its payment system, Global-e.

QWhich payment system was the source of the Ledger user data leak?

AThe data leak occurred through the Global-e payment system, which Ledger uses for e-commerce and product sales on its official website.

QWhat type of user information was compromised in the Ledger data breach according to the email shared by ZachXBT?

AThe compromised information included users' names and contact information.

QHad Ledger experienced a similar data security incident prior to this one?

AYes, in 2020, Ledger reported a data breach that compromised the information of over 270,000 customers, including delivery addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses.

QWhat was a long-term consequence for users after Ledger's 2020 data breach?

AFor several years after the 2020 incident, Ledger users received phishing messages via email and even physical mail, aimed at stealing additional information to facilitate cryptocurrency theft.

Letture associate

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.

marsbit13 min fa

Agent Race Ends, Super Workbench Takes Over

marsbit13 min fa

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.

marsbit29 min fa

Michael Saylor: 110 Reasons to Oppose BIP-110

marsbit29 min fa

Trading

Spot
活动图片