Nov 2, 2026, 3:32 a.m. EST
4 min read
Zusammenfassung
- Binance’s $6.3 billion theft, the largest reported cryptocurrency heist, exploited wallet permissions and operational controls rather than breaking Ethereum’s underlying cryptography.
- Confirmed cryptocurrency transfers generally cannot be reversed, making breaches potentially more costly, but available data do not establish whether exchanges face more attacks than banks.
- The attack has intensified calls for exchanges to strengthen signing procedures, withdrawal limits and financial safeguards, as blockchain transparency can help trace stolen funds without ensuring their recovery.
An attacker who compromises a crypto exchange’s withdrawal controls can move billions of dollars in minutes, leaving investigators chasing funds that may be impossible to recover. Binance’s $6.3 billion theft has renewed debate over the safeguards exchanges need to prevent a security breach from becoming a financial catastrophe.
That difference is at the center of a debate over whether cryptocurrencies are more vulnerable to attacks than banks and other traditional financial institutions, following Thursday’s $6.3 billion attack on Binance, the largest reported cryptocurrency theft to date.
Banks also get hacked. A 2024 International Monetary Fund (IMF) report banks were the most frequent targets of cyberattacks within the financial sector. Financial firms accounted for nearly 20% of reported cyber incidents across industries, with almost $12 billion in reported direct losses between 2004 and 2023.
But those figures measure reported cyber losses, not every dollar stolen through banking fraud and cannot establish whether banks or crypto exchanges are hacked more frequently.
Tomer Sharoni, CEO of Israeli blockchain intelligence firm Addressable, the difference lies less in how hackers gain access than in what they can steal once inside.
“A bank employee’s laptop can be compromised exactly the same way as an exchange employee’s laptop,” Sharoni told CoinDesk. “The phishing email, the malicious download and the fake job interview are all the same. The difference is what the attacker gets at the end.”
Banks have several opportunities to catch or stop fraudulent transfers, from compliance checks to checks by banks processing the payments. Some transfers can even be recalled after they are sent. With crypto, confirmed blockchain transactions generally cannot be reversed, though issuers can freeze some stolen tokens, potentially limiting an attacker’s ability to cash out.
That makes exchanges particularly attractive targets, Sharoni said: “Speed, finality and irreversibility make large crypto treasuries the most valuable targets in finance.”
Sharoni added that crypto firms are attacked more often because hackers stand to gain more from a successful breach.
Debating security
Abdul Rafay Gadit, co-founder of ZIG Finance, made comments that are opposite to Sharoni’s assessment that crypto firms are attacked more often.
“Crypto doesn’t get hacked more than banks. It just can’t hide it, and it can’t undo it,” Gadit told CoinDesk. “Banks get breached constantly, but most incidents are handled quietly and surface later, if at all. A crypto hack shows up on a block explorer within minutes, so it feels more frequent.”
Gadit said banks often investigate breaches internally and notify affected customers privately. Crypto thefts are harder to keep out of public view because anyone can follow the stolen funds on a blockchain.
And a bank breach doesn’t necessarily mean money was stolen. Hackers may get hold of customer records or passwords without touching deposits.
The two experts diverge on whether crypto firms are attacked more often or whether their losses are simply more visible. As a result, neither provided comparative data showing which industry suffers more attacks.
The attack on Binance illustrates the danger.
According to CoinDesk’s examination of the exploit, the attackers drained about $2.5 billion from a Binance wallet in less than four minutes after malicious code was authorized to operate it through Ethereum’s EIP-7702 feature, which lets ordinary wallets run software known as smart contracts.
Binance co-CEO Richard Teng said Friday that investigators had uncovered multiple security breaches, including evidence that attackers used a mechanism to erase traces of their activity. The exchange is rebuilding its withdrawal infrastructure and reviewing its signing procedures, employee devices and key management.
The attack did not require breaking Ethereum’s underlying cryptography. It exploited the systems and permissions used to operate a cryptocurrency wallet.
Gadit said exchanges need the same operational safeguards banks have developed, including separate signing authorities, approval procedures and limits on withdrawals.
“So, no, crypto isn’t more vulnerable; it’s just less forgiving,” he said.
The price of failure
The scale of the Binance theft is not an isolated concern. Before the attack, blockchain security firm CertiK recorded $1.28 billion in crypto losses during the third quarter of 2026, up nearly 56% from the previous quarter. The $1.5 billion Bybit theft in February 2025 was another example of attackers targeting the systems used to control digital assets.
Daniel Tunkel, head of financial regulation at London law firm Edwin Coe, described the security risks facing crypto exchanges as “an accident waiting to happen.” He added regulators must also consider whether exchanges have the financial resources and operational safeguards to withstand a major breach, rather than focusing solely on preventing attacks.
The warning points to the difficulty exchanges face in protecting large pools of cryptocurrency while keeping enough funds available for customers to trade and withdraw.
Meanwhile, Sharoni said blockchain transparency helps investigators follow stolen funds and identify where they move, but tracing a theft is not the same as preventing it.
“Closing the gap between spotting a theft and stopping it ahead of time is now the industry’s central security challenge.”
Originally published at https://www.coindesk.com/business/2026/11/02/why-crypto-exchange-hacks-can-be-harder-to-contain-versus-global-banks.
