Bitget hack drains $351.6M but BGB token holds steady

The hacker still holds about 24,590 ether across three addresses opened during the incident. If those coins are sold instead of being hidden using privacy services, that could pressure ETH prices. BGB's price is mostly determined on Bitget's own exchange, meaning prices on other platforms may be slow to reflect changes in sentiment until withdrawals are unblocked. Once withdrawals resume, some users may shift funds to competitors, potentially bringing inflows to other exchanges. The days immediately after the reopening will probably reveal more than the price moves seen overnight.

---

Prior:

• Attackers steal $351.6M from Bitget in what may be 2026's largest crypto theft

---

The modest decline in BGB implies that traders think Bitget can handle a $351.6M hack, but since withdrawals remain suspended, the market has not been forced to verify that belief.

Key points:

• On Friday during the Asian session, BGB traded at roughly $1.963, about 3% to 5% lower than the $2.02 to $2.06 level it held before the hack.
• Bitget states that its User Protection Fund, valued at over $464 million, covers the entire $351.6M loss and that customer account balances are not impacted.
• Bitget has released proof-of-reserves reports for 45 months in a row, with the latest for August showing a 122% reserve ratio.
• Deposits and trading are still active, but withdrawals are frozen, and a large portion of BGB trading occurs on Bitget's own exchange.
• Transfers from Bitget wallets went on for almost three hours after the exchange says it first noticed the breach. The method used by the attackers has not yet been revealed.
• The incident report is scheduled for 21:30 UTC on 25 September.

Bitget's native token BGB has performed much better than a $351.6M hack would imply. Early Friday in the Asian session, BGB traded near $1.963, about 3% to 5% under the $2.02 to $2.06 level that prevailed for most of Thursday before the breach was disclosed. That is a genuine decline, but not the kind of crash that might be anticipated after one of the year's biggest crypto heists.

For those unfamiliar with crypto, an exchange token is a digital currency created by a trading platform. Its price is strongly linked to the platform's condition, since demand for the token mostly relies on ongoing usage of that exchange. That makes BGB a handy real-time indicator of traders' trust in Bitget.

The key reason for the tepid reaction appears to be Bitget's pledge to fully cover the stolen amount. CEO Gracy Chen stated that Bitget's User Protection Fund contains over $464 million, well above the stolen sum, and that customer accounts remain unchanged. Bitget has also put out proof-of-reserves reports for 45 months straight, with the August report indicating a 122% reserve ratio, per Forbes. Put simply, the exchange claims it held more assets than it owed to clients. Deposits and trading are ongoing, and the broader crypto market rose nearly 10% in the past week, indicating that traders view this as an issue specific to Bitget rather than a systemic risk.

The difference between a hack and a solvency crisis is relevant here. In 2022, when FTX failed, the issue was whether the exchange still possessed customers' funds, and its token was obliterated. A hack that is covered by reserves is costly and humiliating, but it does not necessarily imply the platform is unable to pay. So far, the market is treating Bitget's incident as the former scenario.

There is a caveat, and it is speculative rather than verified. A large share of BGB trading takes place on Bitget, where withdrawals are still halted. A user who sells BGB on that platform gets proceeds that also cannot be withdrawn, which may be restraining selling activity for now. The token's price may not get a complete assessment until customers can actually shift their funds out.

Some facts could also alter market mood. Forbes cites on-chain data indicating that transfers from Bitget wallets went on for almost three hours after the exchange claims it originally spotted the breach, and the last ether transfer arrived 52 minutes before the public announcement. Bitget has not yet disclosed how the attackers gained access.

The next thing to monitor is Bitget's incident report, scheduled for 21:30 UTC on Friday, September 25. A transparent explanation, a believable remedy, and a smooth resumption of withdrawals would back the market's current calm interpretation. A prolonged freeze, an increased loss amount, or uncertainty about the actual contents of the protection fund would undermine it. BGB's performance after withdrawals restart will provide the clearest indication. For now, the takeaway is that the initial price response to a hack is not always the ultimate judgment.