The Bybit trick of $ 1.5 billion, the largest in Crypto’s history, has put the entire industry on a maximum alert. According to the reports, the attack, made by the Lázaro group of North Korea, resulted in the theft of more than 401,000 ETH, reinforcing the reality that no exchange is safe from sophisticated cyber threats, and any platform may be at risk.
Bybit’s response is critical. The positive conclusion is that Bybit has restored a support of assets 1: 1 for its customers and has closed the “ether gap.” However, this temporary situation, where users assume the burden of centralized exchange safety failures (CEX) could boost self -study participants, maintaining only the minimum in transactions exchanges.
While the complete consequences of this violation are still being developed, it can serve as a catalyst for retail and institutional participants to rethink their strategies. This is how the trick could remodel bets.
Possible rethinking losses
The trick resulted in the theft of approximately 400,000 ETH, which is almost $ 1 billion in losses at an average price of $ 2,600 per ETH. Beyond the immediate financial coup, Ethereum’s yield, around 4% per year, means a loss of approximately 16,000 ETH in annual rethinking rewards.
For perspective, if these stolen ETH extended in 100 stakers, each would have lost 160 eth in rewards. This is a significant blow, particularly for retail investors who can lack financial resistance to absorb such losses.
Decline participation in the stock market in centralized exchanges
The Bybit trick can be a turning point for the cryptographic industry, highlighting the risks of rethinking centralized platforms. The trend is already visible in recent data: in the last six months, the amount of ETH is staked in centralized exchanges has decreased from 8,597,984 ETH in September 2024 to 8,024,288 ETH in February 2025, which represents a 6.67%decrease. This change occurs in the midst of growing concerns about safety and transparency on centralized platforms.
In addition, after the trick from February 20 to February 23, ETH in CEXS fell by 0.56%, while chain rethinking (excluding CEX) increased by 0.31%. This suggests a change in the rethinking landscape, with users who increasingly move away their assets of centralized exchanges to rethinking solutions or safer and non -custodial hardware wallets.
This change could have long -term implications for the encryption market. Centralized exchanges, which have long dominated the rethinking ecosystem, can see that their influence decreases. As the stakers migrate to decentralized alternatives, CEX roles in governance, distribution of rewards and network updates could decrease. In the long term, this can result in the remodeling of the rethinking market, with decentralized alternatives that take the center of the stage.
Institutional adoption at risk
High profile hacks such as Bybit’s inevitably make institutional investors more cautious when entering the cryptography market. When auditors evaluate rethinking products, including ETH ETH, safety violations of billions of dollars can cause legal and compliance equipment to blow the brakes in cryptographic allocations.
This stagnation could delay the timeline to achieve new price maximums and delay broader adoption.
Given the growing threat of hacks, it is crucial that retail and institutional investors adopt AutoCustody Audited and Certified solutions. Ensuring assets through non -custodial wallets and decentralized platforms can significantly mitigate the risks raised by centralized exchanges. At the same time, exchanges must work to rebuild confidence improving their security measures, performing regular audits and offering insurance schemes for users affected by infractions.
In addition, the entire cryptographic community, including developers, exchanges, regulators and users, must join to balance innovation with security. This collaboration is essential for the long -term viability of the industry. By strengthening general security infrastructure, we can create an environment in which retail and institutional participants can compromise with the cryptography market.
