What makes the situation stranger is that while the USB device remained with police, the digital assets inside had already been transferred elsewhere.

What happened  and how was it discovered?

The Bitcoin were voluntarily surrendered by suspects during an investigation in November 2021. Because the case was later suspended, the assets were not actively monitored for a long period. That changed only after a separate loss in Gwangju triggered nationwide routine inspections.

During the internal review, investigators found the following: the USB-style cold wallet was still held by police  but the BTC inside was gone.

This detail matters. Since the hardware was not stolen, it suggests the private keys may have been accessed by a third party. Early findings indicate that the wallet password was leaked, enabling unauthorized transfers.

The Gyeonggi Northern Provincial Police Agency has launched a formal internal investigation to clarify the circumstances and rule out any internal involvement. Access logs, key management procedures, and on-chain activity are all under review. For now, no staff members have been publicly accused.

Not a technical exploit human error

Sources close to the case say the Bitcoin were stored on a portable USB device rather than a more robust institutional custody system. There are also indications that the wallet password was exposed during a routine inspection.

This mirrors a pattern seen repeatedly in recent crypto losses: assets are often compromised not through sophisticated hacks, but through social engineering and weak internal controls. Phishing attacks aren’t technical  they’re deceptive. One trusting click, and the consequences can be massive.

A brief side note: claims that 320 BTC seized in Gwangju were lost after investigators accidentally accessed a phishing site helped trigger the broader inspection wave.

Authorities are now reviewing blockchain transaction records to determine whether the missing BTC were sent to external wallets. So far, no recovery has been announced publicly, and details remain limited while the investigation continues.

Seizure of digital assets is becoming institutionalized in South Korea

This incident sits within a larger framework. In South Korea, the seizure of digital assets has gradually become formalized following landmark Supreme Court rulings confirming that cryptocurrencies can be treated as property under the Criminal Procedure Act.

In March 2024, the Gwangju District Prosecutors’ Office also attempted to recover Bitcoin worth approximately 170 billion won in connection with another illegal gambling operation. State capacity is clearly expanding yet this case highlights persistent gaps in custody and internal control.

You can also freely share your thoughts and comments about the topic in the comment section. Additionally, don’t forget to follow us on our Telegram, YouTube, and Twitter channels for the latest news and updates.

The post South Korean Police Lose Bitcoin Stored in Cold Wallet appeared first on Coin Engineer.

The company noted that the loss does not impact operational cash flow and is recorded only as a “non-operating expense” in accounting. Following the impairment, Metaplanet reported a consolidated ordinary loss of ¥98.56 billion ($640 million) and a net loss of ¥76.63 billion ($498 million). This translates into a comprehensive loss of ¥54.02 billion ($351 million) attributable to shareholders. Final results are scheduled for release on February 16.

In a statement, the company said, “Short-term accounting volatility is inherent in our business model. Our medium- to long-term BTC accumulation and capital strategy remain on track.”

By the end of 2025, Metaplanet held 35,102 BTC, up from just 1,762 BTC a year earlier. According to CEO Simon Gerovich, the company spent $451.06 million in Q4 2025 at an average price of $105,412 per BTC. Bitcoin traded at around $87,500 on December 31, 2025.

Valuation Losses and Financial Overview

Interestingly, despite these losses, Metaplanet revised its 2025 revenue forecasts upward. The company saw stronger-than-expected returns from bitcoin derivatives and options strategies (Bitcoin Income Generation).

• Revenue: ¥8.9 billion ($57.8 million), up 31% from previous estimate of ¥6.8 billion ($44 million)

• Operating income: ¥6.3 billion ($41 million), up 33.8% from ¥4.7 billion ($30.5 million)

Growth was supported by a new share issuance and a $500 million credit facility. Metaplanet said, “We were able to deploy capital more flexibly than anticipated and allocated more resources to the Bitcoin Income Generation Business.”

For fiscal 2026, Metaplanet expects:

• Revenue: ¥16 billion ($104 million), up 79.7%

• Operating income: ¥11.4 billion ($74 million), up 81.3%

• Bitcoin Income Generation contribution: ¥15.6 billion ($101.3 million)

Metaplanet’s Tokyo-listed shares fell 7.03% to ¥476 today, while its U.S. OTC-traded shares rose 1.56% on Friday to $3.26.

Also, in the comment section, you can freely share your comments and opinions about the topic. Additionally, don’t forget to follow us on Telegram, YouTube and Twitter for the latest news and updates.

The post Metaplanet Reports Million-Dollar Bitcoin Loss appeared first on Coin Engineer.

Major Crypto Hack and Losses in August 2025 

Hackers struck a Bitcoin holder, stealing approximately $91.4 million. BtcTurk lost between $48–54 million from its hot wallets. ODIN•FUN suffered $7 million, BetterBank.io lost $5 million, and CrediXFinance experienced $4.5 million in losses. These figures highlight risks from weak private key management, smart contract vulnerabilities, and operational weaknesses in exchanges. 

Organized hacking groups remained active in August. Reports indicate alleged North Korean hackers stole around $1.6 billion in crypto during the first half of 2025, accounting for roughly 70% of global losses. Moreover, social engineering attacks allowed hackers to infiltrate internal systems. By applying for IT jobs with fake identities, they accessed corporate systems and software supply chains. 

RWA Projects and Rising Security Risks 

Real World Asset (RWA) tokenization projects also faced increasing attacks. Certik reports indicate $14.6 million in losses during the first half of 2025. RWA projects combine on-chain infrastructure with off-chain assets, creating multiple weak points for exploitation. This combination of technical and human-based risks provides attackers significant opportunities. 

Rising attacks emphasize the need for stronger security measures. Audits, red team tests, and insurance coverage have become critical. Additionally, strict internal controls are essential to prevent insider threats. By improving these measures, exchanges and investors can better defend against evolving attack patterns. 

August 2025 demonstrated the crucial importance of a robust security culture in the crypto ecosystem. Both individual investors and institutions must strengthen their systems. Every segment of the chain remains exposed to potential losses, and this trend is likely to continue in the coming months. 

You can also freely share your thoughts and comments about the topic in the comment section. Additionally, don’t forget to follow us on our Telegram, YouTube, and Twitter channels for the latest news and updates.

The post August 2025 Top Crypto Hack List! appeared first on Coin Engineer.

The initial transaction used a “default or conservative” fee setting. The user’s first RBF attempt doubled the fee and altered the output address. But instead of confirming either of these transactions, a final RBF with a dramatically higher fee overrode them, causing the entire amount of the change — 0.75 BTC — to be included as miner reward.

Satoshi Error or Bug in Wallet Script?

According to Anmol Jain, VP of Investigations at AMLBot, the user may have made a simple yet costly mistake in fee calculation. Jain suggested the user likely meant to enter 30.5692 sat, but accidentally typed 305,692 sat — or confused sat/vB with total satoshis.

Another theory is that an automated wallet script contained a miscalculation. Some wallets allow fee settings in sats/vB, and such confusion can arise if the system interprets a small value as too low and prompts the user to increase it. Jain explains:

“User types 305000 thinking it’s 30.5 sat/vB, but the wallet applies 305,000 sat/vB — which is insane.”

You Might Be Interested In: Elon Musk Talks About the Name of a New Memecoin!

The mistake caused the wallet to treat a full UTXO of nearly 0.75 BTC as a transaction fee, likely due to not properly updating the change address or misreading the transaction structure. Both earlier transactions remained unconfirmed while the highest-fee version went through.

RBF: Flexible Feature or Dangerous Tool?

Replace-by-fee is a controversial but core feature in Bitcoin. It allows users to replace unconfirmed transactions with higher-fee versions. Miners, motivated by profit, are expected to confirm the version that offers a higher reward.

This mechanism has sparked debate. In 2019, Bitcoin Cash advocate Hayden Otto claimed RBF enabled double-spending. Bitcoin Cash removed RBF support and claimed unconfirmed transactions on its network were final and trustworthy.

Despite this, RBF-like behaviors have occurred on Bitcoin Cash as well, showing that this feature is more a result of blockchain dynamics than a standalone switch.

You can also freely share your thoughts and comments about the topic in the comment section. Additionally, don’t forget to follow us on our Telegram, YouTube, and Twitter channels for the latest news and updates.

The post Panicked Bitcoiner Loses Over $70K in RBF Fee Error! appeared first on Coin Engineer.