Just two hacker groups may have stolen $1 billion in cryptocurrency
Just two teams of sophisticated cybercriminals appear to have been behind $1 billion worth of cryptocurrency thefts from online exchanges in recent years.
Alpha and Beta: Blockchain analytics firm Chainalysis spent around three months tracking funds that had been stolen in known hacks. It was able to link much of that money to two groups, which it dubbed Alpha and Beta. If the group’s analysis is correct, then the two groups would account for 60% of all publicly reported crypto-heists.
The researchers suspect that Alpha is “a giant, tightly controlled organization at least partly driven by non-monetary goals.” Beta, on the other hand, “seems to be a less organized and smaller organization absolutely focused on the money.”
Crypto laundering: Chainalysis told the Wall Street Journal that both Alpha and Beta used extensive networks of cryptocurrency wallets to cover their tracks, transferring the stolen funds an average of 5,000 times before cashing out. Whereas Alpha tends to start the elaborate process immediately, Beta is known to sit on the money until the publicity around the hack fades.
Undermining trust: The cryptocurrency industry, and especially the exchange scene, has been under increasing scrutiny from regulators who say it can’t yet be trusted to secure customer funds. Revelations like this support that conclusion.
(Also see “Criminals thought Bitcoin was the perfect hiding place, but they thought wrong.”)
Keep Reading
Most Popular
The inside story of how ChatGPT was built from the people who made it
Exclusive conversations that take us behind the scenes of a cultural phenomenon.
How Rust went from a side project to the world’s most-loved programming language
For decades, coders wrote critical systems in C and C++. Now they turn to Rust.
ChatGPT is about to revolutionize the economy. We need to decide what that looks like.
New large language models will transform many jobs. Whether they will lead to widespread prosperity or not is up to us.
Design thinking was supposed to fix the world. Where did it go wrong?
An approach that promised to democratize design may have done the opposite.
Stay connected
Get the latest updates from
MIT Technology Review
Discover special offers, top stories, upcoming events, and more.