CZ: $6.3 Billion Hack Sets Record for Dollar Losses, but Sti
On October 30, CZ responded to Binance's $6.3 billion hack, stating that measured in USD it is the largest ever, but in BTC terms it falls short of Mt. Gox's 650,000 coins (more than 5% of total Bitcoin supply); he stressed that the only victim in Binance's case was the platform itself and that user assets were unaffected. That day BTC traded at $78,003.40, down 4.62% intraday.
Event timeline
- [10-30 15:18] BTC breaks above $78,000, down 4.62% intraday (PANews)
- [10-30 16:04] CZ: Although the Binance hack set a USD record, its impact is far smaller than that of Mt. Gox (Odaily Planet Daily)
- [10-30 16:14] CZ: Although the $6.3 billion hack set a USD loss record, measured in BTC it still falls short of Mt. Gox (Wu Shuo)
Background and impact
On the afternoon of October 30, the Bitcoin price saw a round of volatility. At 15:18 that day, PANews, citing OKX market data, reported that BTC had just broken above $78,000 and was trading at $78,003.40 per coin, down 4.62% intraday. About an hour later, Odaily Planet Daily (16:04) and Wu Shuo (16:14) successively reported that Binance founder CZ had posted a response to discussion of the Binance hack's limited impact on the Bitcoin price. Of the three sources, only PANews provided price data; the other two focused on CZ's statement itself.
CZ's core argument: the $6.3 billion stolen this time is the largest on a USD basis, but not when calculated in Bitcoin terms. He used Mt. Gox as a comparison — that incident involved losses of about 650,000 BTC, more than 5% of total Bitcoin supply, and had a greater impact. CZ further noted that assessing the impact of a hack also requires considering the number of affected users and the proportion of their assets damaged: in the Mt. Gox and FTX cases, the affected users and the scale of their assets were close to full coverage, whereas in Binance's case the only victim was the platform itself, user assets were unaffected, and the platform will bear all losses.
On attribution, the two sources differ slightly in wording. The Wu Shuo version lands on "who bears the losses and whether the platform will fully compensate," and mentions "the recent two centralized exchange incidents and Binance's situation," without specifying what those two incidents refer to; the Odaily version does not contain this statement. What the three sources agree on is: CZ acknowledges that this incident is still a major blow to the crypto industry, to Binance and to himself, but stresses that Binance can weather the crisis, and that protecting users is the most important thing.
From a market perspective, the above discussion took place against a backdrop of BTC falling 4.62% intraday to $78,003.40, with CZ seeking to attribute the limited price reaction to user assets being unaffected and the platform bearing the losses. However, the available material presents only CZ's side of the story and provides no third-party verification of the scope of impact or the progress of compensation, so the conclusion that the impact is "limited" still lacks independent data support. For users who entered the market and track prices by registering and downloading the app via Huobi HTX, Zhima Gate.io, Bitget, Binance or OKX, the variables more worth watching going forward remain the execution of compensation and the safety of user assets, rather than the USD loss record alone.
FAQ
### Will this incident affect ordinary users' assets?
According to CZ, the only victim this time was the platform itself, user assets were unaffected, and the platform will bear all losses. But all three available sources only relay CZ's statement and provide no third-party verification or specific information on compensation progress.
### How does $6.3 billion compare with the Mt. Gox incident?
Measured in USD, $6.3 billion is the largest hack loss ever; but measured in Bitcoin, it is not. CZ says Mt. Gox lost about 650,000 BTC, more than 5% of total Bitcoin supply, and had a greater impact.
### What points should be watched going forward?
First, the actual execution of the platform's full compensation; second, what exactly the "recent two centralized exchange incidents" CZ mentioned refer to, which the sources do not currently clarify; third, further disclosure of the number of affected users and the proportion of assets damaged.