‘The Circle USDC Files’: ZachXBT Finds $420M In Suspect Transactions, Weak Oversight

bitcoinistPublished on 2026-04-04Last updated on 2026-04-04

Abstract

On-chain investigator ZachXBT's report, "The Circle USDC Files," alleges over $420 million in compliance failures by Circle related to its stablecoin USDC since 2022. The report claims Circle repeatedly failed to use its on-chain freezing and blacklist functions to halt stolen funds in high-profile DeFi exploits, despite having the contractual right and technical capability to do so. Notable cases include the April 2026 Drift Protocol hack ($280M) and the January 2026 SwapNet attack ($16M), where Circle allegedly delayed or refused freeze requests from law enforcement and analysts. Compared to other stablecoin issuers, Circle was significantly slower to act, taking months longer to freeze addresses in some instances. ZachXBT argues this pattern of inaction has caused nine-figure losses to the crypto ecosystem.

On-chain investigator ZachXBT has published a new report, titled “The Circle USDC Files,” alleging more than $420 million in compliance failures tied to the company’s USDC stablecoin since 2022.

The analysis, released on social media platform X on Friday, chronicles multiple high‐profile decentralized finance (DeFi) exploits in which Circle allegedly failed to use its on‐chain freezing and blacklist capabilities to halt the flow of stolen funds.

Alleged Inaction By Circle

Circle’s token contract includes an explicit freeze/blacklist function, and the company’s terms of service reserve the right to restrict access for suspected illicit actors “in its sole discretion.”

Yet, ZachXBT’s report claims that in many widely reported thefts and hacks, the issuer either delayed action or did not freeze funds at all, allowing attackers to move large sums across blockchains and convert them into other assets.

The report opens with the April 1, 2026, Drift Protocol exploit, in which the attacker drained roughly $280 million. According to ZachXBT, the thief used Circle’s Cross‐Chain Transfer Protocol (CCTP) to bridge more than 232 million USDC from Solana (SOL) to Ethereum (ETH) in over 100 transactions.

The incident had ripple effects across the Solana ecosystem, indirectly impacting more than 10 DeFi projects. Despite the funds moving through Circle’s native bridge for hours, the report says no USDC was frozen during the laundering.

ZachXBT also details a January 25, 2026, attack on SwapNet that resulted in $16 million being stolen. Roughly $3 million in USDC remained in the exploiter’s address for two days. Both law enforcement and private‐sector analysts reportedly submitted temporary freeze requests to Circle for that address, but Circle did not act.

Nine‐Figure Losses In Crypto Hacks

Among several other cases cited in the report, ZachXBT also points to broader, long‐running patterns. In April 2024, he published a separate investigation into the Lazarus Group laundering that traced funds from more than two dozen hacks being converted to fiat.

Law enforcement requested freezes from four stablecoin issuers — Circle, Tether, Paxos, and Techteryx — for two addresses tied to that investigation. The report claims the other three issuers acted quickly, while Circle took approximately 4.5 months longer to freeze the same addresses.

Taken together, ZachXBT says these cases — many of them public and high‐value — add up to nine‐figure losses to the crypto ecosystem caused by repeated inaction over a multi‐year period.

He stresses that the $420 million-plus figure covers only major public incidents and that the true total could be substantially higher. The overarching claim is that Circle possesses the contractual and technical tools to intervene, yet has not used them consistently or promptly, with concrete harm to victims and the broader community.

“They have every tool and resource available to do better. They just haven’t,” he writes, closing his report with a pointed question: who, exactly, is Circle serving?

The daily chart shows CRCL’s valuation at around $90 at the time of writing. Source: CRCL on TradingView.com

Featured image from OpenArt, chart from TradingView.com

Related Questions

QWhat is the main allegation in ZachXBT's report titled 'The Circle USDC Files'?

AThe report alleges more than $420 million in compliance failures tied to Circle's USDC stablecoin since 2022, claiming the company failed to use its on-chain freezing and blacklist capabilities to halt the flow of stolen funds in multiple high-profile DeFi exploits.

QAccording to the report, what specific tool did Circle allegedly fail to use effectively in the Drift Protocol exploit?

ACircle allegedly failed to use its on-chain freeze/blacklist function and its Cross-Chain Transfer Protocol (CCTP) to stop the attacker from bridging over 232 million USDC from Solana to Ethereum in over 100 transactions, despite the funds moving for hours.

QHow did Circle's response time to a law enforcement freeze request compare to other stablecoin issuers in the Lazarus Group case?

AThe report claims that while Tether, Paxos, and Techteryx acted quickly on the law enforcement request, Circle took approximately 4.5 months longer to freeze the addresses tied to the investigation.

QWhat does ZachXBT suggest is the total financial impact of Circle's alleged inaction?

AZachXBT states that the cases add up to nine-figure losses (over $100 million) to the crypto ecosystem, with the $420 million-plus figure covering only major public incidents, and the true total potentially being substantially higher.

QWhat contractual right does Circle's Terms of Service reserve regarding suspected illicit actors?

ACircle's Terms of Service reserve the right to restrict access for suspected illicit actors 'in its sole discretion,' granting the company the authority to freeze or blacklist addresses.

Related Reads

a16z: AI's 'Amnesia', Can Continuous Learning Cure It?

The article "a16z: AI's 'Amnesia' – Can Continual Learning Cure It?" explores the limitations of current large language models (LLMs), which, like the protagonist in the film *Memento*, are trapped in a perpetual present—unable to form new memories after training. While methods like in-context learning (ICL), retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), and external scaffolding (e.g., chat history, prompts) provide temporary solutions, they fail to enable true internalization of new knowledge. The authors argue that compression—the core of learning during training—is halted at deployment, preventing models from generalizing, discovering novel solutions (e.g., mathematical proofs), or handling adversarial scenarios. The piece introduces *continual learning* as a critical research direction to address this, categorizing approaches into three paths: 1. **Context**: Scaling external memory via longer context windows, multi-agent systems, and smarter retrieval. 2. **Modules**: Using pluggable adapters or external memory layers for specialization without full retraining. 3. **Weights**: Enabling parameter updates through sparse training, test-time training, meta-learning, distillation, and reinforcement learning from feedback. Challenges include catastrophic forgetting, safety risks, and auditability, but overcoming these could unlock models that learn iteratively from experience. The conclusion emphasizes that while context-based methods are effective, true breakthroughs require models to compress new information into weights post-deployment, moving from mere retrieval to genuine learning.

marsbit22m ago

a16z: AI's 'Amnesia', Can Continuous Learning Cure It?

marsbit22m ago

Can a Hair Dryer Earn $34,000? Deciphering the Reflexivity Paradox in Prediction Markets

An individual manipulated a weather sensor at Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport with a portable heat source, causing a Polymarket weather market to settle at 22°C and earning $34,000. This incident highlights a fundamental issue in prediction markets: when a market aims to reflect reality, it also incentivizes participants to influence that reality. Prediction markets operate on two layers: platform rules (what outcome counts as a win) and data sources (what actually happened). While most focus on rules, the real vulnerability lies in the data source. If reality is recorded through a specific source, influencing that source directly affects market settlement. The article categorizes markets by their vulnerability: 1. **Single-point physical data sources** (e.g., weather stations): Easily manipulated through physical interference. 2. **Insider information markets** (e.g., MrBeast video details): Insiders like team members use non-public information to trade. Kalshi fined a剪辑师 $20,000 for insider trading. 3. **Actor-manipulated markets** (e.g., Andrew Tate’s tweet counts): The subject of the market can control the outcome. Evidence suggests Tate’sociated accounts coordinated to profit. 4. **Individual-action markets** (e.g., WNBA disruptions): A single person can execute an event to profit from their pre-placed bets. Kalshi and Polymarket handle these issues differently. Kalshi enforces strict KYC, publicly penalizes insider trading, and reports to regulators. Polymarket, with its anonymous wallet-based system, has historically been more permissive, arguing that insider information improves market accuracy. However, it cooperated with authorities in the "Van Dyke case," where a user traded on classified government information. The core paradox is reflexivity: prediction markets are designed to discover truth, but their financial incentives can distort reality. The more valuable a prediction becomes, the more likely participants are to influence the event itself. The market ceases to be a mirror of reality and instead shapes it.

marsbit1h ago

Can a Hair Dryer Earn $34,000? Deciphering the Reflexivity Paradox in Prediction Markets

marsbit1h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片