TL;DR
Get hardware and tech essentials delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
Tether, Circle and other crypto firms froze roughly $3 billion in assets linked to the $6.3 billion Binance theft, which investigators have linked to North Korean hackers. Experts praised the intervention but questioned whether smaller victims would receive the same response and stressed that blocking tokens does not itself return them to Binance.
Tether, Circle, Ripple and World Liberty Financial froze roughly $3 billion in cryptocurrency linked to the $6.3 billion theft from Binance, drawing praise for the speed of the response and questions about whether smaller victims would get similar help. Experts told CoinDesk that a freeze can stop some stolen tokens from moving, but does not itself establish ownership or return the funds.
The theft, reported Thursday, was linked by blockchain investigators to North Korean hackers. Tether said it froze more than $1.567 billion in USDT, while Circle said it blocked more than $800 million in USDC in coordination with law enforcement. CoinDesk reported Circle’s total at about $823 million. Ripple and World Liberty Financial also froze assets, though the report did not specify their amounts.
Binance said Friday it had frozen roughly $3 billion and set aside more than $6.34 billion in its reserves to cover customer losses. Those figures describe separate actions: assets frozen across the response and Binance’s own reserves. The report did not establish that all frozen assets had been returned to Binance or its customers.
Anton Golub, head of exchange go-to-market at Forte and a former crypto exchange executive, supported freezing stolen cryptocurrency but questioned whether the response reflected consistent standards. He contrasted the Binance case with smaller incidents where, he said, companies have cited court orders or legal restrictions. Legal experts also pointed to the risk of freezing assets incorrectly and the work needed to establish who is entitled to them.
The Uneven Reach of Crypto Freezes
The response shows how quickly major issuers can restrict some stolen funds when assets are held in tokens they control. That capacity can limit an attacker’s ability to transfer or conceal those tokens, but it also gives issuers significant discretion—and exposes them to legal and operational risks if they act on mistaken information.
The dispute is about more than the Binance case: victims may ask whether intervention depends on the evidence, legal process, or the size and prominence of the affected company. Golub argued that smaller victims should receive the same standards. The source material does not establish that the issuers applied different rules in this case; it records experts’ questions about consistency.
For customers, the distinction between a frozen balance and a recovered one matters. Binance said it had reserves to cover losses, but the report does not detail how those reserves would be distributed or how any frozen tokens would be handled. Cryptocurrency remains volatile, and theft or legal disputes can result in losses; a freeze is not a guarantee of repayment.
Products Worth Considering
Trezor Safe 7 Crypto Hardware Wallet
Ledger Flex + Folio Crypto Hardware Wallet
Ledger Flex Crypto Wallet
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Earlier Freezes Under Scrutiny
The Binance response drew comparisons with earlier incidents. In April, Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire said the company freezes USDC when directed by law enforcement or a court. Tether took a similar position in 2022, saying it would not freeze Tornado Cash addresses without law-enforcement instructions. Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino’s post about the Binance-related freeze did not say whether his company had received such instructions.
Golub also cited the roughly $290 million Drift hack in April, when Circle faced criticism for not freezing stolen USDC. He questioned why Circle acted quickly in the Binance case. The comparison raises questions about decision-making, but does not by itself show that the circumstances, evidence or legal requests in the two cases were the same.
Freezing options also depend on the asset. Issuers such as Tether and Circle can block transfers of their stablecoins through issuer-controlled functions. Bitcoin has no central issuer with a comparable ability to freeze transfers at the network level, so intervention can depend on where the funds move and whether exchanges or custodians can act.
“The rules should be the same for everyone.”
— Anton Golub, head of exchange go-to-market at Forte and former crypto exchange executive
Ownership and Legal Process Remain Open
It is not yet clear how Binance will recover frozen assets, whether a court order will be required, or how ownership will be established. The source report says recovery may involve replacing frozen stablecoins, but the procedure can depend on the facts and applicable legal requirements.
The report also does not specify the amounts frozen by Ripple and World Liberty Financial, the precise status of every asset, or whether all the blocked funds remain under control of the participating companies. Tether’s post did not disclose whether it acted on an instruction from law enforcement; Circle said its action was coordinated with law enforcement.
Further questions concern whether the intervention standards in this case match those used in earlier hacks. Experts raised that concern, but the available reporting does not provide the companies’ full decision records or establish that the cases were legally equivalent.
Recovery Decisions and Court Actions
The next steps are likely to depend on Binance’s efforts to establish its claim to the frozen assets and on decisions by issuers, law enforcement, courts, exchanges and custodians. If funds have moved across platforms or jurisdictions, recovery may require coordination among multiple parties and legal systems, according to Alexander Shirtcliff, head of commercial disputes at Edwin Coe.
Binance’s statement that it set aside more than $6.34 billion to cover customer losses provides a separate indication of how it plans to address the theft, but the report gives no further details on timing or distribution. The amount ultimately returned from frozen assets, the process for any replacement tokens and whether the case results in court proceedings remain to be seen.
Key Questions
How much was frozen after the Binance theft?
Binance said Friday that roughly $3 billion had been frozen. Tether reported freezing more than $1.567 billion in USDT, and Circle reported blocking more than $800 million in USDC. The report did not provide amounts for Ripple or World Liberty Financial.
Does freezing the tokens mean Binance gets the money back?
No. Experts said a freeze can prevent certain tokens from moving, but it does not by itself establish ownership or return funds. The recovery process may require legal steps and verification of the rightful owner.
Why can stablecoin issuers freeze tokens but not bitcoin?
Tether and Circle have issuer-controlled functions that let them block transfers of their stablecoins. Bitcoin has no central issuer with a comparable network-level freezing function.
Did law enforcement direct every freeze?
The source report says Circle acted in coordination with law enforcement. Ardoino’s post confirmed Tether’s freeze but did not say whether it followed an instruction from authorities. The available information does not establish the basis for every company’s action.
Who was linked to the Binance theft?
Blockchain investigators linked the $6.3 billion theft to North Korean hackers. The report describes this as investigators’ attribution, not as a finding confirmed through a court judgment.
Source: coindesk.com
