The crypto sector has had its fair share of crimes, scandals, thefts and embarrassments.
And the theft of approximately $6.3 billion in digital assets from Binance last Thursday (Oct. 29) certainly ranks up there among the “worst days in crypto history.” But while the billions stolen represent the largest cryptocurrency hack in history, what institutional investors will remember more than any alleged state-sanctioned attack is what the experience of getting their money back looks like.
After all, look no further for proof than FTX, Synapse, or countless other exchange failures for the fact that what matters most for crypto hacks is what happens when customers try to get their money back after it happens.
By Monday (Nov. 2), Binance customers had reportedly withdrawn north of $4.7 billion, while Binance has reportedly pledged to assume responsibility for replacing customers’ assets using its Secure Asset Fund for Users (SAFU) while investigators pursue a recovery of the full $6.3 billion that was stolen.
The digital asset industry has spent years developing infrastructure that allows digital assets to move across borders, settle around the clock and increasingly interact with conventional financial markets outside of the blockchain. But the institutional arrangements governing what happens after something goes wrong, including who supplies liquidity, freezes assets, compensates customers and absorbs residual losses, remain far less uniform.
For institutional customers, the difference can become critical precisely when markets are under pressure.
Read more: Getting Money Back Could Be Stablecoins’ Next Big Selling Point
Binance’s Recovery Reveals the Limits of Crypto’s Safety Net
Binance’s breach is being reported as the largest cryptocurrency theft on record, dwarfing the roughly $1.5 billion stolen from Bybit in February 2025. The FBI has attributed both attacks to North Korea’s TraderTraitor hacking group. The two leading stablecoin issuers, Tether and Circle, collectively froze about $3 billion after the Binance hack, PYMNTS reported Friday, noting that issuer-controlled stablecoins retain an avenue for intervention after funds leave an exchange.
Bitcoin, however, has no issuer with equivalent powers, Eric Jardine, head of research at Chainalysis, told PYMNTS Friday. Authorities generally need the private keys or cooperation from an exchange or another custodian holding the funds.
“A court order alone cannot make the bitcoin network transfer coins,” Jardine said.
For banks and corporate treasurers considering digital assets for payments or liquidity management, that distinction matters. Settlement finality may reduce payment uncertainty, but it can also increase the importance of transaction screening, counterparty verification and recovery procedures before funds move.
The PYMNTS Intelligence report “From Asset to Everyday Money: Making Digital Currencies Spendable” found in July that cross-border B2B transfers are already one of the largest use cases for stablecoins and represent the majority of global stablecoin payment volume.
And it bears highlighting for finance teams that the same operational event at a less-capitalized crypto institution or exchange could produce a materially different result. As digital assets become more integrated with conventional finance, the consequences could extend to businesses that do not consider themselves cryptocurrency investors.
A multinational using stablecoins for supplier payments, for example, might encounter delays or frozen funds without suffering any direct cyberattack. Its exposure would arise from dependence on an exchange, issuer, custodian or settlement provider.
Read more: The Public Blockchain Debate is Already Obsolete for Banks
Institutional Crypto Needs an Answer for Who Bears the Loss
Crypto’s institutional gap is also becoming a concern for central banks. The Bank of Korea’s first assessment of financial institutions’ involvement in virtual assets offers a window into how digital asset risks are entering mainstream financial supervision. The survey examining 18 banks and 13 brokerage firms began Oct. 23, before the Binance breach, making the timing particularly revealing.
A major exchange failure could transmit stress through several mechanisms: banks holding deposits for crypto businesses, brokerages with digital-asset exposure, stablecoin redemption demands and investors forced to liquidate traditional assets to cover cryptocurrency losses.
An exchange can remain solvent while temporarily denying customers access to their assets. Conversely, customers can retain access to withdrawals even as falling collateral values or concentrated counterparty exposures destabilize other institutions.
The PYMNTS Intelligence report “Waiting for Certainty: Why Most CFOs Are Holding Back on Crypto and Stablecoins” found in March that 88% of firms receiving stablecoins convert them immediately into U.S. dollars.
For banks, asset managers and corporate treasury departments, the relevant measure of cryptocurrency infrastructure may increasingly be less about transaction speed or trading liquidity during normal conditions than about the reliability of those functions under stress.
For all PYMNTS digital transformation and B2B coverage, subscribe to the daily digital transformation and B2B newsletters.
