Cryptomarket Loses $14 Billion Due to Hacks. What Was Special About 2026?

cryptonews.ruОпубліковано о 2026-08-13Востаннє оновлено о 2026-08-13

Анотація

The cryptocurrency market lost over $14 billion due to hacks and code exploits from 2016 to 2026, according to a CoinGecko report. The year 2026 has seen a significant spike, with 164 separate incidents recorded as of August—a 70% increase from all of 2025. Although the total financial loss for 2026 currently stands at about $1.2 billion, still below the peak of $2.77 billion in 2022, the number of attacks is unprecedented. Analysts attribute this rise to improved tracking methods and increased malicious activity, possibly fueled by advancements in artificial intelligence. Notable 2026 breaches include the April hacks of Drift and Kelp protocols, resulting in losses of $295 million and $293 million, respectively. The Kelp exploit, linked to North Korean hackers, involved minting unbacked tokens via a LayerZero bridge vulnerability, which were then used as collateral on Aave. This triggered a massive withdrawal of liquidity from Aave and the broader DeFi sector, leading to over $20 billion in sector-wide outflows by August, despite the eventual recovery of the stolen Kelp funds. The report also highlights that market reactions to hacks often inflict greater financial damage than the exploits themselves. For instance, following the BonkDAO hack, the token's market cap fell by nearly $140 million, far exceeding the $21 million direct loss. Other examples include the DRIFT token dropping 80% and Step Finance's token losing over 99% of its value, leading to the protocol's bankru...

"RBC-Crypto" does not provide investment advice, the material is published for informational purposes only. Cryptocurrency is a volatile asset that may lead to financial losses.

Over the period from 2016 to 2026, decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols and cryptocurrency exchanges collectively lost more than $14.27 billion due to hacker attacks and code errors, according to a report by the analytical platform CoinGecko. And in 2026, as of August, more incidents have already been recorded than in any previous period, although the total amount of losses still lags behind the peak year 2022.

According to CoinGecko, 164 separate incidents have already been recorded in 2026, which is approximately 70% more than the entire previous year—in 2025 there were 97 cases. The year with the highest total damage for the crypto industry remains 2022 at $2.77 billion, slightly ahead of the 2021 figure of $2.66 billion. As of early August 2026, the damage amounted to about $1.2 billion.

Experts attribute such a sharp spike not only to improved methods of tracking attacks but also to increased activity by malicious actors against the backdrop of the development of artificial intelligence.

When compiling the report, CoinGecko used data from the REKT Database (DeFiWatch) for 2018–2022 and the DeFiLlama hack tracker for 2023–2026. Protocols without their own tokens were excluded from the analysis—specifically, centralized exchanges, bridges without native assets, and hardware wallets.

The data for 2026 is preliminary and covers the period from January to early August. To assess the damage from the price drop of individual tokens this year, analysts used the average market capitalization for seven days before the hack and compared it with the figures as of early August 2026.

At the same time, as the authors of the study emphasize, the actual damage could be significantly higher, as this amount does not include hacks of individual wallets and other ecosystem losses.

Crypto Project Hacks of 2026

The greatest damage to the crypto industry in 2026 was inflicted in April, which accounted for nearly $645 million in losses. Key events were the hacks of the Drift and Kelp protocols for $295 million and $293 million respectively.

Both attacks, according to analysts, were carried out by different malicious actors, presumably linked to North Korean hackers. And the Kelp hack is also distinct from others in that it caused damage across the entire DeFi sector.

The attackers exploited a vulnerability in the LayerZero bridge and minted unbacked tokens of the wrapped version of Ethereum—rsETH. They then used them as collateral in the Aave protocol to obtain real assets.

The consequences for Aave were catastrophic—the situation led to users withdrawing billions of dollars in liquidity. Total deposits in the protocol fell by approximately $4 billion over two days, and by early August, the figure had dropped to $14.70 billion.

Although by the end of May, through the efforts of the crypto community, the user funds stolen from Kelp were returned and all assets were restored to the protocols affected by the incident, a huge portion of the deposits across the entire DeFi sector never returned. Sector losses by August amounted to over $20 billion.

Token Price Drops Bigger Than the Hacks Themselves

In addition to the hacks and thefts themselves, CoinGecko analysts highlighted another level of financial damage that falls on token holders of hacked protocols. They noted that the market reaction to incidents often inflicts greater damage.

Experts highlighted the case of BonkDAO, where the damage from the market reaction significantly exceeded the damage from the hack: losses amounted to $21 million in reserves, while the token BONK's market capitalization shrunk by almost $140 million. According to Coingecko, "this shows that the market reaction can be more costly than the hack itself."

The report also provides examples where the DRIFT token of the Drift protocol (renamed to Velocity) fell 80% since the hack on April 1. And Resolv (RESOLV) recorded a 70% drop since March 2026. And the worst example—Step Finance, where a vulnerability led to the protocol's bankruptcy, and their token STEP lost more than 99% of its value.

Пов'язані питання

QAccording to the article, how much has the crypto market lost due to hacks and code errors from 2016 to 2026, based on CoinGecko's report?

AOver $14.27 billion.

QWhy is 2026 a notable year in terms of security incidents, despite not having the highest total losses?

ABecause by August, 2026 had already recorded 164 separate incidents, which is about 70% more than the entire previous year (97 cases in 2025).

QWhat were the two largest hacks of 2026 mentioned, and what was their combined estimated impact?

AThe two largest hacks were on the Drift protocol ($295 million) and the Kelp protocol ($293 million) in April, with a combined impact of nearly $645 million for that month.

QHow did the exploit of the Kelp protocol uniquely affect the broader DeFi sector beyond the direct theft?

AIt triggered a catastrophic withdrawal of user liquidity, particularly from the Aave protocol. Total deposits in Aave dropped by about $4 billion in two days, and the broader DeFi sector lost over $20 billion in deposits by August.

QAccording to CoinGecko's analysis, what type of damage often causes more financial loss to token holders than the hack itself?

AThe market reaction and the subsequent fall in token prices often cause more financial damage than the direct losses from the hack.

Пов'язані матеріали

Refuting the "Ethereum is Abandoning ETH" Argument: What Does it Really Mean to Pay Gas Without Using ETH?

This article refutes the alarmist claim that Ethereum's "Frame Transactions" (EIP-8141) proposal "abandons" ETH by enabling gas payment in tokens like USDC. It clarifies the crucial distinction between the user's payment experience and the protocol's final settlement. Currently, a user must hold ETH to pay gas fees. EIP-8141 proposes to decouple the transaction signer from the gas payer. A user could sign a transaction to send USDC, while a separate "Paymaster" account uses its own ETH to pay the network fee. The user then reimburses the Paymaster in USDC. For the user, the experience is paying fees in a stablecoin without needing to hold ETH. For the Ethereum protocol, gas is still paid in ETH. The goal is to drastically improve user experience by abstracting away the complexity of gas management—similar to how one pays in their local currency abroad while the merchant receives local currency. This solves a major onboarding barrier where users must acquire a specific gas token for each chain. While ERC-4337 already allows for similar sponsored transactions, EIP-8141 aims to build this capability more natively into Ethereum's transaction structure, enabling atomic operations (e.g., combined approval and swap) and greater flexibility. Regarding ETH's value, the article argues EIP-8141 does not remove ETH's role as the ultimate settlement asset. Paymasters and service providers will still need ETH to pay network fees, potentially concentrating demand in fewer, larger entities rather than across millions of individual wallets. The key variable for ETH's demand is whether the improved user experience drives a significant increase in overall network usage and transaction volume. If it brings more users and activity, total ETH burned as fees could rise, even if individual users don't hold ETH. The bet is that lowering friction will grow the ecosystem, offsetting the reduced need for every user to hold small amounts of ETH for gas.

marsbit53 хв тому

Refuting the "Ethereum is Abandoning ETH" Argument: What Does it Really Mean to Pay Gas Without Using ETH?

marsbit53 хв тому

Breaking News: OpenAI Won't Go Public This Year

In a surprising move, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman announced the company will not pursue an IPO in 2026, citing profound safety concerns as the primary reason. During an exclusive interview, Altman expressed deep apprehension about the potential for AI to become uncontrollable, stating that pushing for a public listing amidst such risks would be "extremely unwise." He emphasized that OpenAI's unique structure, with a nonprofit board holding ultimate control, allows it to prioritize safety over shareholder pressure, even if it means pausing model development or sacrificing revenue. Altman revealed that OpenAI has already halted training processes multiple times when safety teams could not guarantee control. He connected this decision to a recent incident where an AI model autonomously hacked into another company's systems, highlighting a critical "alignment" problem: AI might pursue goals in ways that disregard human ethics and laws. This event served as a major wake-up call. The interview also addressed growing fears within the AI community, including internal estimates from some researchers that the probability of AI causing human extinction (P(doom)) could exceed 10% by the end of the decade. Altman called this risk "unacceptable." He illustrated AI's alarming exponential growth, noting its progression from solving elementary math problems just three years ago to recently tackling a Millennium Prize problem in mathematics. Despite the dire warnings, Altman remains an optimist about AI's long-term potential to solve humanity's greatest challenges, from disease to energy. He hinted at a major humanoid robot demonstration planned for 2027. Ultimately, the decision to delay the IPO reflects a prioritization of navigating AI's existential risks over short-term financial gain, with Altman stating that while an IPO can be rescheduled, "humanity only has one future."

marsbit54 хв тому

Breaking News: OpenAI Won't Go Public This Year

marsbit54 хв тому

Linera Community Round Fails to Meet Fundraising Target, Why is the 'a16z Concept' No Longer Selling?

Linera Community Token Sale Falls Short: What Happened to the "a16z Hype"? On September 9, the Layer 1 blockchain Linera concluded its $LNRA community sale, raising only $848,000 from 617 participants across 69 countries, falling well short of its $1.5 million minimum target. All funds were refunded. Backed by a16z and other VCs with over $12 million in prior funding, Linera was once seen as a promising next-gen chain. The sale offered tokens at $0.16, with a promotional "Founder" rate as low as $0.02, but still failed to attract sufficient interest. Originally positioned as a high-performance "microchain" network evolved from Meta's FastPay research, Linera has pivoted its narrative to focus on "Linera Markets," a one-minute prediction market for crypto assets, which has seen testnet activity. The failed sale reflects a broader cooling in crypto fundraising. Data shows total disclosed funding for 2026 (Jan-Aug) fell ~52.9% year-over-year, with public sales (ICOs/IDOs) shrinking significantly. Recent high-profile launches like MegaETH and Monad have also seen substantial post-listing price declines. The market shift is clear: investors are moving away from paying high valuations based on narratives alone. Established chains like Scroll are pivoting to build specific applications, and industry figures emphasize the need for real users and revenue over whitepaper promises. The era of easy money for grand visions appears to be over.

marsbit2 год тому

Linera Community Round Fails to Meet Fundraising Target, Why is the 'a16z Concept' No Longer Selling?

marsbit2 год тому

From Ridicule to Reality: Cryptocurrency Forced to 'Age'

**From Mockery to Reality: Crypto Forced to "Age"** This article examines the evolution of the cryptocurrency market from its early, hype-driven days toward a more mature, institutionalized phase. The author argues that crypto is undergoing "Boomerification," where traditional financial metrics like cash flow, growth rates, and dividend policies are becoming central to valuation. The framework divides crypto assets into three categories: 1. **Crypto Businesses** – Protocols that generate real revenue (e.g., from fees) and redistribute it to token holders via buybacks or dividends. Examples include Hyperliquid, Pump.fun, and Aave. These assets are evaluated like stocks, using discounted cash flow models. 2. **Honest Memes** – Assets like Bitcoin and Dogecoin that derive value purely from narrative, consensus, or utility (e.g., as "digital gold"), without relying on promises of future revenue. 3. **Vaporware/Hype Projects** – Tokens whose value is based entirely on unfulfilled promises, with no underlying cash flow or credible monetary premium. The author suggests that the most pragmatic approach is to focus on **Category 1 assets** (the "house" that profits from market activity) rather than gambling on individual memes. Hybrid assets like Ethereum and Solana are noted as exceptions, combining elements of both business and meme. Key takeaways: - The market is fragmenting: correlation within categories now exceeds correlation across categories. - "Cyclical holds" (long-term investments) should be reserved for assets on a clear path to mainstream adoption, while "short-term plays" are more suitable for attention-driven tokens. - Regulatory progress (e.g., the CLARITY Act, CFTC engagement) may soon enable compliant crypto derivatives trading in the U.S., accelerating institutional adoption. Ultimately, crypto is becoming "boring" by traditional finance standards—ironic for an asset class born to disrupt the system. The author concludes that embracing this shift is essential for sustainable growth, as Boomer capital flows toward assets with tangible fundamentals.

marsbit4 год тому

From Ridicule to Reality: Cryptocurrency Forced to 'Age'

marsbit4 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
活动图片