CoinDCX admits operational losses from failed transfers of old hacked wallets

Failed transfers from wallets tied to a past hack

Indian crypto exchange (a platform to buy and sell digital assets) CoinDCX admitted operational losses after it failed to move user deposits out of addresses that were previously compromised during its July 2025 hack. The issue drew scrutiny after about $16 million in transfers from those addresses were flagged.

What the exchange says happened

CoinDCX said some users continued depositing crypto into the old addresses despite warnings to stop. It tried to regularly transfer those deposits out of those addresses to secure locations, but that process failed for an unspecified period. That failure led to operational losses, which were absorbed by CoinDCX. The exchange added that all affected deposits have been credited to user accounts. It also said its current wallets are not affected, no funds from active wallets were compromised, and customer assets remain in segregated cold wallets (wallets kept offline for security).

Dispute over how long the addresses were used

CoinDCX's explanation followed pushback from investigators. Blockchain investigator ZachXBT challenged the exchange's earlier claim that the flagged addresses had not been used since the July 2025 compromise. He said one deposit address remained in use by a liquidity provider (a service that helps provide funds for trading) for 10 months after the July 2025 incident. According to him, that address continued to transfer user deposits to CoinDCX's current public hot wallet (a wallet connected to the internet) and received funds to cover transaction fees. CoinDCX CEO Sumit Gupta said the matter is under investigation and assured that no user funds would be at loss.

Past loss still in context

CoinDCX lost $44 million in the July 2025 hack. At the time, it said customer wallets were separate from the affected account and that it would cover the loss from its treasury reserves.

What remains unclear

The exact length of time the failed transfer process lasted is not known from the supplied material. Details around the post-hack use of the address also remain under investigation.

Sources

• Cointelegraph