Independent record. Not associated with, endorsed by or operated by Binance. We will never ask you to connect a wallet, log in or pay to recover funds.

Open questions

What is still unanswered, why it matters and who could answer it. A question is marked answered only when an approved, quoted claim answers it, and the answer is shown as that party's statement, not as settled fact.

16 questions, 16 not fully answered.

Open Updated

Where will the assets that issuers cannot freeze go next?

Why it matters. Elliptic says about $3.25 billion could not be frozen. A first deposit to an exchange would show where the attacker tries to cash out.

Who could answer. On-chain analysts; exchanges; law enforcement

No approved answer yet.

Open Updated

When did Binance first detect the unauthorised transfers, and how?

Why it matters. The main drain took about 20 minutes. Blockaid says it flagged the sweep in under two minutes.

Who could answer. Binance

No approved answer yet.

Open Updated

Did Binance's signing system apply value, rate or destination limits, and what did they check?

Why it matters. Hacken notes nobody outside Binance knows whether a policy layer was set.

Who could answer. Binance

No approved answer yet.

Partly answered Updated

Was the attack carried out by one person or a team?

Why it matters. Teng said it was not carried out by one person.

Who could answer. Binance; law enforcement

Answer, as stated by the source

The BBC quoted Richard Teng as saying the attack was not carried out by one person.

This was not carried out by one person.

BBC News. Original Claim 337

Partly answered Updated

Was the compromised laptop the first entry point, and how was it compromised?

Why it matters. Binance says the laptop may have been the start but also that there were additional points of breach.

Who could answer. Binance

Answer, as stated by the source

Binance said in its first 30 October update that its initial investigation suggested a compromised DevOps engineer's laptop may have let an attacker reach a service container and submit unauthorized withdrawals.

Binance's initial investigation suggests that the security incident may involve a compromised DevOps engineer’s laptop, which allowed an attacker to gain access to a service container and submit unauthorized withdrawal transactions.

Binance. Original Claim 280

Partly answered Updated

What evidence underlies the FBI's attribution to TraderTraitor?

Why it matters. The FBI statement names the group but the statement we captured does not set out its evidence.

Who could answer. FBI

Answer, as stated by the source

The FBI said North Korea was responsible for the theft of more than $6 billion in virtual assets from Binance on or about 29 October 2026.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is releasing information advising the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) was responsible for the theft of more than $6 billion USD in virtual assets from cryptocurrency exchange Binance, on or about October 29, 2026.

FBI. Original Claim 295

Partly answered Updated

When will Binance publish its full post-mortem?

Why it matters. Binance said it expected to share further findings within about 48 hours of 30 October. It later said it will publish a post-incident report when the investigation is complete.

Who could answer. Binance

Answer, as stated by the source

Binance said in Recovery Update #4 that it will publish a post-incident report with further details once the investigation is complete.

Once the investigation is complete, we will publish a post-incident report with further details on the incident.

Binance. Original Claim 183

Partly answered Updated

Which regulators and agencies have opened investigations or taken action?

Why it matters. It shapes the legal consequences for Binance and for customers.

Who could answer. FBI; US Secret Service; IRS-CI; Abu Dhabi FSRA; CFTC

Answer, as stated by the source

The FBI said North Korea was responsible for the theft of more than $6 billion in virtual assets from Binance on or about 29 October 2026.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is releasing information advising the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) was responsible for the theft of more than $6 billion USD in virtual assets from cryptocurrency exchange Binance, on or about October 29, 2026.

FBI. Original Claim 295

Partly answered Updated

Are Binance's reserves fully backed, as shown by the full proof of reserves?

Why it matters. The full zero-knowledge proof is still being generated.

Who could answer. Binance; independent verifiers

Answer, as stated by the source

Binance said on 31 October that the full zero-knowledge proof of reserves was estimated to be ready by Tuesday 3 November 2026 (UTC).

so users holding any of these ten tokens can independently verify that their assets are at a minimum 1:1 backed once the full proof is generated, estimated to be by Tuesday, 2026-11-03 (UTC).

Binance. Original Claim 407

Partly answered Updated

Who bears the loss?

Why it matters. Binance says it does. Experts warned the promise may not be legally binding.

Who could answer. Binance; regulators; courts

Answer, as stated by the source

Binance said on 1 November that it will bear the financial impact of the stolen funds and that the losses will not be passed on to users.

Our commitment remains unchanged: Binance will bear the financial impact of the stolen funds. These losses will not be passed on to users.

Binance. Original Claim 406

Partly answered Updated

Where does the money to replace the stolen tokens come from?

Why it matters. Binance names SAFU, treasury and part of its Futures insurance fund but gives no split.

Who could answer. Binance

Answer, as stated by the source

Binance said on 31 October that replenishment used a partial deployment of SAFU.

A partial deployment of the Secure Asset Fund for Users (SAFU). This is expected to happen over the next 24 hours; users can view the updated balance here.

Binance. Original Claim 290

Partly answered Updated

How much has been recovered, as opposed to frozen?

Why it matters. Frozen funds are not automatically returned to Binance or users.

Who could answer. Binance; law enforcement; token issuers

Answer, as stated by the source

Cointelegraph reported that frozen funds do not necessarily equal recovered funds, because freezing stops attackers spending them but does not automatically return them to Binance or its users.

frozen funds don’t necessarily equate to recovered funds. Immobilizing assets prevents the suspected attackers from spending them, but it doesn’t automatically return them to Binance or its users.

Cointelegraph. Original Claim 405

Partly answered Updated

What is the total amount stolen?

Why it matters. Published totals run from $5.9B to $6.43B and the methods differ.

Who could answer. Binance; on-chain analysts

Answer, as stated by the source

Binance said in its Security Incident Update #2 that at around 20:05 UTC on 2026-10-29 its hot wallets were compromised, resulting in a loss of approximately $6.3B USD worth of token assets.

At around 2026-10-29 20:05 (UTC), our hot wallets were compromised, resulting in a loss of approximately $6.3B USD worth of token assets.

Binance. Original Claim 167

Partly answered Updated

How did the attacker obtain valid signatures if no private key leaked?

Why it matters. Binance says it found no evidence of a key leak. Analysts say its signing system signed for the attacker.

Who could answer. Binance; law enforcement

Answer, as stated by the source

Binance repeated in its second 30 October update that it had found no evidence that wallet private keys were leaked.

At this stage, we have found no evidence that wallet private keys were leaked.

Binance. Original Claim 285

Partly answered Updated

Which transaction controls failed or were bypassed?

Why it matters. It decides whether this was a design flaw or a one-off.

Who could answer. Binance

Answer, as stated by the source

Cointelegraph reported that co-CEO Richard Teng said the attacker used an EIP-7702 delegation to gain execution authority over a hot wallet, and that the delegation did not pass through Binance's normal approval controls.

The attacker used an EIP-7702 delegation to gain execution authority over a hot wallet, Teng said. That delegation “did not pass through our normal approval controls.”

Cointelegraph. Original Claim 134

Partly answered Updated

What was the full attack chain, from first foothold to signatures on every chain?

Why it matters. Without it nobody can judge whether other exchanges are exposed to the same path.

Who could answer. Binance post-mortem; law enforcement

Answer, as stated by the source

Binance said in its second 30 October update that its later investigation had uncovered additional points of breach beyond a compromised laptop.

Our initial investigation suggested that the incident may involve a compromised laptop, however, our subsequent investigation has uncovered additional points of breach.

Binance. Original Claim 284

Know a source that answers one of these? Tip and report forms are not available yet; see About.