On October 29, 2026, Bitcoin traded below $77,000 and BNB was down 7.1% over 24 hours amid reports of a Binance security incident. The Block also reported substantial liquidations. These figures describe a specific market snapshot; they do not prove the incident was the sole cause of the broader decline.
In The Block's October 29 snapshot, Bitcoin was at $76,664 after a 4.5% 24-hour decline, while BNB was down 7.1%.
The Block reported that Bitcoin had slipped below $77,000 as several major crypto assets also declined. In the same snapshot, Ether was down 5.2% and XRP was down 7%. These are time-specific figures from the report, not current prices.
The move coincided with reports of a Binance security incident. That timing is relevant to understanding the market response, but it does not by itself establish what caused every part of the sell-off.
At the time of the reports, Binance said it was investigating a potential security issue; The Block reported that the exchange's co-CEO pledged to cover user losses.
The Associated Press described Binance as investigating a potential security issue and reported that the company’s founder said the event looked like a hack. The Block described an exploit and reported that co-CEO Yi He said Binance would cover user losses related to it.
Reports, preliminary estimates and confirmed technical findings are not the same thing. The sources reviewed here do not establish a definitive technical root cause, so a specific attack scenario should not be presented as proven.
The Block reported $1.55 billion in liquidations over 24 hours, including $1.34 billion in long positions.
Forced position closures can accompany sharp market moves and add pressure to prices. The liquidation total is a time-specific figure reported by The Block, citing CoinGlass, rather than a final tally for the entire period following the news.
For trading platforms, a practical takeaway is to review how margin monitoring, risk limits and alerts behave when liquidity or prices shift quickly. This is a general risk-management recommendation, not a claim about the precise mechanisms behind liquidations in this episode.
The episode underscores the value of security and market-risk readiness, but does not reveal a confirmed technical failure mode.
When a major security incident is reported, platform operators can use it as a prompt to review practical readiness in several areas:
This is a general review checklist, not a description of confirmed shortcomings at Binance. The sources do not specify which infrastructure changes the company will make after the incident.
The Block reported the move late on October 29, 2026. Its snapshot at about 10:00 p.m. ET put Bitcoin at $76,664.
The Block reported a 7.1% 24-hour decline in BNB in its October 29, 2026 market snapshot.
In the reports reviewed, Binance said it was investigating a potential security issue. Those reports do not establish a definitive technical root cause.
That is not established. The market decline coincided with reports of the incident, but the available data does not prove it was the sole cause of declines across crypto assets.
On October 25, 2026, CoinDCX said it lost 15.99 million USDT after an automated process for moving deposits from deprecated wallets failed, and said the company absorbed the loss. The exchange says its active wallets and trading operations were unaffected; that claim is not independently verified by the statement itself.
CoinDCX says deposits continued to reach old wallet addresses while the automated service meant to move those funds was failing for a period.
In an update dated October 25, 2026, CoinDCX linked the unusual activity to earlier wallet infrastructure that it says had been deprecated after a July 2025 security incident. The exchange said a failure in its deposit-sweeping process resulted in a 15.99 million USDT loss, which the company absorbed.
CoinDCX also said some users continued sending funds to old addresses despite guidance to use current addresses shown in its app. This is the exchange’s account of the incident, not independent confirmation of every detail.
CoinDCX says its active wallets, customer balances, and trading operations continued to function, but that claim should not be presented as an independent audit.
The company said its active trading and wallet infrastructure was not paused and that customer assets remain in segregated cold wallets. These are CoinDCX’s statements; the published update does not independently verify the status of every balance.
Blockchain data can help trace token movements, but it does not by itself identify who controlled the addresses or how access was obtained. The transfers alone therefore do not resolve every question about the incident’s mechanism.
CoinDCX’s update did not specify how long the process failed, exactly how the legacy infrastructure was compromised, or provide a complete account of the funds’ movements.
Based on the available statements, it is not possible to establish precisely how the vulnerability arose, how long the sweeping service was unavailable, or how many deposits were affected. Blockchain analysis records transactions and notes limits in attributing addresses; it is not a complete technical report on the cause of the incident.
A practical precaution for users is to check the deposit address and network in the exchange’s official app or website each time they transfer funds. Addresses saved from earlier transactions may no longer be current. This is a general safety step, not a guarantee against loss.
In its October 25, 2026 update, CoinDCX reported a loss of 15.99 million USDT and said the company absorbed it.
The exchange attributed the incident to deprecated infrastructure and a failed deposit-sweeping process. It said active wallets were unaffected; the update itself does not independently verify that claim.
It refers to a process intended to move funds from deposit addresses into an exchange’s primary wallet.
Check the current address and network in the exchange’s official app or website before each deposit instead of relying on a previously saved address.