Crypto Scams and Hacks Surge to $370M in January: CertiK

TheNewsCrypto2026-02-02 tarihinde yayınlandı2026-02-02 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

In January, cryptocurrency scams and hacks surged to $370.3 million, marking the highest monthly loss in 11 months and a fourfold increase from January of the previous year. The majority of the stolen funds came from a single social engineering scam that resulted in a $284 million loss. Phishing attacks accounted for over $311.3 million of the total. The month's largest incidents included a $28.9 million hack on Step Finance, a $26.4 million exploit of the Truebit protocol due to a smart contract bug, and a $13.3 million attack on SwapNet. Overall, 16 major hacks were recorded, causing $86.01 million in losses—a slight decrease from the previous year but a 13% rise from December. The figures represent a 214% increase from December's losses and highlight a significant escalation in crypto security breaches.

The total value of stolen cryptocurrencies via exploits and scams extended to $370.3 million last month, the biggest monthly figure hit in 11 months and around a fourfold increase from January of last year.

CertiK, the biggest Web3 security service provider, stated on January 31 that out of 40 scam incidents that happened in January, the major portion of the total value stolen came from one victim that lost about $284 million because of a social engineering scam.

Around over $370 million stolen was accounted for by phishing scams, which stole over $311.3 million over the month. This month’s figure is the biggest loss, followed by the Bybit hack in February 2025.

In February 2025, the hackers swept off around $1.5 billion overall over the month, a major portion of which came from the $1.4 billion hack on crypto exchange Bybit. The recent amount marks over a 277% surge from January 2025, when attackers swept in and stole $98 million.

The Biggest Surge

CertiK also mentioned that it is also a 214% surge from December, witnessing $117.8 million lost to crypto theft. The blockchain security and data analytics company, PeckShield, revealed on February 1 that the hack of Step Finance in the last month of January was the biggest for the month.

Attackers swept $28.9 million in the attack on the decentralised finance portfolio tracker, where a lot of its treasury wallets were risked, having over 261,000 Solana (SOL) taken. After this, the biggest exploit for the month was the $26.4 million attack on the Truebit protocol on January 8, when a bug in a smart contract permitted an attacker to mint tokens almost for free. This also banged the price of the Truebit (TRU) token.

PeckShield also highlighted the $13.3 million hack on liquidity provider SwapNet on January 26 and the $7 million hack against the blockchain protocol Saga on January 21. The firm mentioned that there were around 16 hacks overall in January, equating to $86.01 million in losses, a 1.42% fall from a year ago, but over a 13% rise from December.

Highlighted Crypto News Today:

CrossCurve Bridge Exploit Exposes $3 Million Loss in Cross-Chain Security Breach

İlgili Sorular

QWhat was the total value of stolen cryptocurrencies in January according to CertiK?

A$370.3 million

QWhich single incident accounted for the majority of the stolen funds in January?

AA social engineering scam that resulted in a loss of about $284 million to one victim.

QWhat was the most significant hack prior to January's surge, as mentioned in the article?

AThe Bybit hack in February 2025, where approximately $1.4 billion was stolen.

QAccording to PeckShield, which was the largest individual hack incident in January?

AThe $28.9 million hack of Step Finance.

QWhat type of attack was responsible for the majority of the stolen funds in January?

APhishing scams, which stole over $311.3 million.

İlgili Okumalar

A major Bitcoin market player, inactive for four years, transferred Bitcoin worth about 46 million dollars! Here are the details

A large Bitcoin investor, inactive for four years, has moved 730 BTC worth approximately $46.12 million. The assets, accumulated over seven years, were transferred to a newly created wallet from an address with no prior transaction history. Analysts suggest the move could be linked to recently discovered security vulnerabilities in hardware wallets, potentially prompting long-term holders to migrate funds for safety. There is no evidence the bitcoins were sent to an exchange, leaving the intent—whether for security or potential sale—unclear. This follows another recent large transfer of over 16,400 BTC (worth >$1 billion) by a separate long-term holder. Such activity signals renewed movement of funds among major investors, though transfers between wallets do not necessarily indicate imminent selling and can be for security or portfolio management purposes.

cryptonews.ru9 dk önce

A major Bitcoin market player, inactive for four years, transferred Bitcoin worth about 46 million dollars! Here are the details

cryptonews.ru9 dk önce

Bitcoin may find bear market bottom in August: 10x Research

Research firm 10x Research suggests Bitcoin could confirm a bear-market bottom in August if it achieves a monthly close above $63,000, which would turn several of their technical indicators bullish. While their analysis was prepared with Bitcoin trading at $63,140, a slight gain from July's close could trigger this signal. The report cites steady Federal Reserve rates as a base case but notes risks from potential rate hikes and geopolitical conflict. Additional selling pressure is expected from miners and treasury companies. Grayscale's research head separately suggested Bitcoin may have bottomed earlier than the traditional four-year cycle, with macro conditions being the primary price driver. Other indicators, like over half of Bitcoin's supply being held at a loss and a record balance held by long-term investors, are also seen as signs a market bottom is approaching.

cointelegraph23 dk önce

Bitcoin may find bear market bottom in August: 10x Research

cointelegraph23 dk önce

In-depth: The Foreign Guest Genspark

The article "The Foreign Guest: Genspark" investigates the identity and business practices of AI startup Genspark, which presents itself as a Palo Alto-based "AI Costco" offering a subscription bundle of over 70 models and numerous AI agent tools. Despite its official Silicon Valley narrative, Genspark's founding team has deep roots in Chinese tech giant Baidu, a history systematically downplayed in its branding. The company actively cultivates an image as an elite US firm, heavily publicizing partnerships and endorsements from OpenAI, Anthropic, and Microsoft, while distancing itself from the Chinese AI community and obscuring its connections to Chinese investors and open-weight models (like those from DeepSeek, Moonshot AI, and MiniMax) that power its services. Genspark's core strategy involves rapidly cloning and integrating successful AI product concepts (e.g., from Perplexity, Manus, Plaud) into its unified platform, supported by aggressive marketing, including Super Bowl ads and paid native content in publications like The Wall Street Journal. Critically, the article suggests a significant portion of its engineering and product development is conducted by a team in Beijing, operating outside its official US corporate structure. This duality allows Genspark to leverage Chinese talent and models for efficiency and cost reduction while constructing a public facade as a purely American success story. The piece concludes that Genspark's most effective agent is its own corporate identity, meticulously engineered to obscure its Chinese underpinnings and be perceived solely as a Silicon Valley company.

marsbit42 dk önce

marsbit42 dk önce

Should Bitcoin Be "Immutable"? Craig Wright Reignites Governance Route Dispute

The debate over Bitcoin's governance is reignited by Craig Wright, who argues the protocol should remain permanently fixed and immutable. He views Bitcoin's core value as its transparent, unchangeable monetary rules, contrasting it with traditional finance. This stance sparks discussion on whether Bitcoin should evolve to address security threats, user demands, and efficiency, or if its determinism is its primary strength. The article notes that Bitcoin has undergone significant upgrades like SegWit and Taproot, achieved through community consensus rather than top-down decisions. However, tension persists between the need for stability—which fosters trust—and the need for adaptation to remain competitive. A key concern is the influence of core developers versus the decentralized ideal. Ultimately, the debate centers on finding a governance model that balances immutable core principles with the ability to innovate. This challenge is fundamental to Bitcoin's future as a decentralized global system.

marsbit44 dk önce

Should Bitcoin Be "Immutable"? Craig Wright Reignites Governance Route Dispute

marsbit44 dk önce

Debate: Korean Workers Fear Unemployment, While Musk Envisions a Society 'Without Work'?

While South Korean auto workers fear job losses from robotics, Elon Musk envisions a future where AI and robots render most work optional. This article explores the growing tension between immediate anxieties over automation and long-term visions of a post-work society. The piece begins with recent strikes at Hyundai's Korean plants, where unions, amid standard wage negotiations, also sought job guarantees against advancing robotics—specifically mentioning Boston Dynamics' Atlas. This reflects how anxiety about technological displacement is emerging even before robots are fully capable of replacing skilled labor on assembly lines. The author argues that while current robotics still struggle with the nuanced, experiential knowledge of veteran workers, the *perception* of imminent replacement is fueling social conflict prematurely. This modern "Luddite" sentiment is compared to the 19th-century English textile workers who smashed machines. Historically, Luddites weren't simply anti-technology; they were protesting the rapid devaluation of their skills and the unequal distribution of productivity gains. Similarly, today's workers ask who will bear the cost of transition and share in the new wealth created by machines. In contrast, figures like Elon Musk propose an optimistic endpoint: with AI and robotics driving extreme abundance, the link between work and survival could break. He suggests concepts like "Universal High Income" could allow society to share the technological bounty, transforming work from a necessity into a choice. The core challenge, however, lies in the transition. The author notes that technology's benefits diffuse slowly, while its disruptive costs—job losses, skill obsolescence—can be concentrated and immediate. The risk is a painful interim period where productivity gains are captured by a few before new social contracts, safety nets, and retraining systems are established. The conclusion calls for proactive governance. Just as past industrial revolutions gave rise to labor standards and social safety nets, the robotics era needs its own frameworks. These should address job transition support, distribution of productivity gains, safety liability, and ethical deployment. Embracing such "constraints" is not opposition to progress but a necessary step to ensure technology benefits society broadly. The discussion sparked by Hyundai's workers, therefore, is not premature but essential.

marsbit55 dk önce

Debate: Korean Workers Fear Unemployment, While Musk Envisions a Society 'Without Work'?

marsbit55 dk önce

İşlemler

Spot