Upbit Shifts Nearly All Assets to Cold Storage as Exchange Responds to Security Concerns

bitcoinistPublished on 2025-12-11Last updated on 2025-12-11

Abstract

Following a hack that stole $30 million from a Solana hot wallet, Upbit is shifting nearly all customer assets to cold storage, now holding approximately 99% of funds offline. This move places it among the most conservative exchanges globally in terms of online asset exposure, surpassing cold storage ratios of major competitors like Coinbase and Kraken. The decision follows Upbit's second significant security breach and aligns with stricter regulatory expectations in South Korea. While this enhances security, analysts caution that minimal hot wallet reserves could slow withdrawals during high volatility, potentially exacerbating price discrepancies in Korea’s closed crypto market. Upbit has committed to reimbursing affected users and assures that its rebuilt systems will maintain liquidity under normal conditions.

In the aftermath of a hack that saw attackers steal 44.5 billion won (approximately $30 million) from a Solana hot wallet, Upbit has begun shifting nearly all customer assets into cold storage, a move that now places it among the most conservative platforms globally in terms of online asset exposure.

This transition marks one of the strongest security pivots by a major exchange, signaling a broader industry conversation about balancing rapid withdrawals with the need to reduce attack surfaces.

As digital asset markets continue to expand, Upbit’s response provides a real-time glimpse into how platforms balance operational liquidity against systemic cyber risks.

BTC's price records some small gains on the daily chart. Source: BTCUSD on Tradingview

Upbit Pushes Hot Wallet Usage Toward Zero

Following its internal review and system overhaul, Upbit confirmed that it now stores approximately 99% of user assets in cold wallets, with hot wallet exposure reduced to about 1% and expected to decrease further.

As of late October, the exchange held 98.33% of customer funds offline, a rate already well above the 80% minimum required under South Korea’s Virtual Asset User Protection Act.

This shift follows a pattern of rising caution. The recent breach was Upbit’s second significant attack, occurring on November 27, mirroring a 2019 incident that saw more than 342,000 ETH drained from its systems.

This year’s Solana-based attack resulted in withdrawals across 24 tokens within less than an hour, prompting an immediate shutdown of hot wallet operations and emergency transfers to cold storage. Upbit has pledged to fully reimburse affected users from corporate reserves.

Domestic data suggests that the exchange already leads the market in cold storage usage, maintaining the lowest hot wallet ratio among local competitors, whose cold wallet shares range from 82% to 90%.

Security Benchmark Sets Pressure on Global and Local Exchanges

Upbit’s near-99% cold wallet ratio surpasses the standards of major global exchanges. Coinbase stores about 98% of its funds offline, while Kraken’s ratio sits between 95% and 97%.

Several Asian exchanges, including OKX and Gate.io, maintain similar levels. With Upbit’s latest update, the platform now stands at the forefront of global cold storage practices.

Industry observers note that the move aligns with broader regulatory momentum. South Korea’s Financial Services Commission is considering new rules that would require exchanges to compensate users for losses resulting from hacks, regardless of fault, similar to the standards imposed on banks.

Liquidity Questions Linger in a Restricted Market

While security is at the center of Upbit’s restructuring, analysts caution that running with minimal hot wallet reserves may slow withdrawals during periods of heightened market volatility.

South Korea’s crypto market is largely closed to foreign participants, restricting arbitrage and creating conditions where delays can exacerbate price discrepancies, commonly known as the “Kimchi premium.”

During last month’s temporary withdrawal suspension, liquidity was effectively trapped, resulting in sharply widening price gaps between the Korean and global markets. Still, Upbit maintains that its rebuilt systems and predictive models will ensure sufficient liquidity under normal trading conditions.

Cover image from ChatGPT, BTCUSD chart from Tradingview

Related Reads

Breaking: OpenAI Undergoes Major Reorganization, President Brockman Assumes Command

OpenAI has announced a major internal reorganization just months before its anticipated IPO. The company is merging its three flagship product lines—ChatGPT, Codex, and the API platform—into a single, unified product organization. The most significant leadership change involves co-founder and President Greg Brockman moving from a background technical role to take full, permanent control over all product strategy. This follows the indefinite medical leave of AGI Deployment CEO Fidji Simo. Additionally, ChatGPT's longtime lead, Nick Turley, has been reassigned to enterprise products, with former Instagram executive Ashley Alexander taking over consumer offerings. The consolidation, internally framed as a strategic move towards an "Agentic Future," aims to break down internal silos and create a cohesive "Super App." This planned desktop application would integrate ChatGPT's conversational abilities, Codex's coding power, and a rumored internal web browser named "Atlas" to autonomously perform complex user tasks. The reorganization occurs amid significant internal and external pressures. OpenAI has recently seen a wave of high-profile departures, including Sora co-lead Bill Peebles and other senior technical leaders, leading to concerns about a thinning executive bench. Externally, rival Anthropic recently secured funding at a staggering $900 billion valuation, surpassing OpenAI's own. Google's upcoming I/O developer conference also poses a competitive threat. Analysts suggest the dramatic restructure is a pre-IPO move to present a clearer, more focused narrative to Wall Street—streamlining operations and demonstrating decisive leadership under Brockman to counter internal turbulence and intense market competition.

marsbit2h ago

Breaking: OpenAI Undergoes Major Reorganization, President Brockman Assumes Command

marsbit2h ago

Two Survival Structures of Market Makers and Arbitrageurs

Market makers and arbitrageurs represent two distinct survival structures in high-frequency trading. Market makers primarily use limit orders (makers) to profit from the bid-ask spread, enjoying high capital efficiency (nominally 100%) but bearing inventory risk. This "inventory risk" arises from passive, fragmented, and discontinuous order fills in the limit order book (LOB). This risk, while a potential cost, can also contribute to excess profit if managed within control boundaries, allowing for mean reversion. Market makers essentially sell "time" (uncertainty over execution timing) to the market for price control and low fees. In contrast, cross-exchange arbitrageurs typically use market orders (takers) to exploit price differences or funding rates, resulting in lower nominal capital efficiency (requiring capital on both exchanges) and higher transaction costs. Their risk exposure stems from asymmetries in exchange rules (e.g., minimum order sizes), execution latency, and infrastructure risks (e.g., ADL, oracle drift). These exposures are active, exogenous gaps that primarily erode profits rather than contribute to them. Arbitrageurs essentially sell "space" (capital sunk across venues) for localized, immediate certainty. Both strategies engage in a trade-off between execution friction and residual risk. Optimal systems allow for temporary, controlled risk exposure rather than enforcing zero exposure at all costs. Their evolution converges towards hybrid models: arbitrageurs may use maker orders to reduce costs, while market makers may use taker orders or hedges for risk management. Ultimately, both use different forms of risk exposure—market makers exposing inventory, arbitrageurs immobilizing capital—to extract marginal, hard-won certainty from the market.

链捕手2h ago

Two Survival Structures of Market Makers and Arbitrageurs

链捕手2h ago

Who Will Define the Rules of the AI Era? Anthropic Discusses the 2028 US-China AI Landscape

This article, based on Anthropic's analysis, outlines the intensifying systemic competition between the U.S./allies and China for AI leadership by 2028. It argues that access to advanced computing power ("compute") is the critical bottleneck, where the U.S. currently holds a significant advantage through chip export controls and allied innovation. However, China's AI labs remain competitive by exploiting policy loopholes—via chip smuggling, overseas data center access, and "model distillation" attacks to copy U.S. model capabilities—keeping them close to the frontier. The piece presents two contrasting scenarios for 2028. In the first, decisive U.S. action to tighten compute controls and curb distillation locks in a 12-24 month AI capability lead, cementing democratic influence over global AI norms, security, and economic infrastructure. In the second, policy inaction allows China to achieve near-parity through continued access to U.S. technology, enabling Beijing to promote its AI stack globally and integrate advanced AI into its military and governance systems, altering the strategic balance. Anthropic contends that maintaining a decisive U.S. lead is essential for shaping safe AI development and governance. The core recommendation is for U.S. policymakers to urgently close compute and model access loopholes while promoting global adoption of the U.S. AI technology stack to secure a lasting strategic advantage.

marsbit4h ago

Who Will Define the Rules of the AI Era? Anthropic Discusses the 2028 US-China AI Landscape

marsbit4h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片