Defend Against Cybercrime with the Power of Community

Executive SummaryOn 24 September 2026, Payy Network’s Ethereum RollupV1 bridge paid 1,918,792.198148 USDC to the same recipient across two verifyRollup batches. Both calls were submitted by Payy’s usual batch-posting address. The first payment was rapidly moved to a second contract, converted through UniswapX into approximately 683.38 ETH, and split across four wallets.By 26 September, three relay paths had deposited a transaction-anchored total of 682.3 ETH into the Tornado Cash Router. A fourth branch retained 1 ETH. The later 90,202.820016 USDC payout remained at the primary recipient; its verified genuine-USDC balance was 90,202.821244 USDC at the 28 September cutoff.Payy’s initial root-cause update ruled out a compromised key, social engineering, and an exploit of its off-chain infrastructure. The company has not yet published the validated technical cause. The call path proves that verifyRollup processed the payouts; it does not by itself prove which verification or authorization invariant failed.Incident AnchorsItemValueEvidenceNetworkEthereumOn-chainBridge / rollup contract0x367C1eAF14AA06b78ce76bd0243297de79d85270Contract historyBatch poster0x5343B904Bf837Befb2f5A256B0CD5fbF30503D38tx.from in both batchesPrimary recipient0xAa4985dBDaBfACa344237D40F7E06C4a0BB57E70USDC Transfer logsSwap / distribution contract0xb483B1742aaD0a60a9FC91bb36C5a42dbE3F3D38USDC and ETH flowFirst drain block26,044,909On-chainFirst observed time2026-09-24 04:21:23 UTCOn-chainPrimary-recipient total1,918,792.198148 USDCTwo verified transfersTwo verifyRollup BatchesTime (UTC)BlockTransactionAmount to primary recipient2026-09-24 04:21:2326,044,9090xf43abdac5422087f645d77923eb1c825178bff3eb86d17d40fa18d89701e18141,828,589.378132 USDC2026-09-24 09:30:3526,046,4390xda88fb9273c703a4d2647c744362f58b6db4e104d7a203a75d4b67e3d54858c890,202.820016 USDCThe first batch included ordinary-looking withdrawals to other addresses as well as the dominant transfer to the primary recipient. The second batch used the same function, bridge, submitter, and recipient.Conversion and Initial ETH SplitAt 04:22:59 UTC, the primary recipient transferred 1,828,594.895417 USDC to 0xb483B1742aaD0a60a9FC91bb36C5a42dbE3F3D38 in transaction 0xb2fd99c115ad98162149fa1e0e8243050d3009719910e00bff16808a12ca10e7. Public reporting identifies the conversion venue as UniswapX. The subsequent ETH distributions sum to approximately 683.38205 ETH.DestinationAmount receivedFirst-hop transactionStatus0xa3dD31d9aD9A7eCAC68c2d2cF6063DfEa7bA3cAe1.000000 ETH0xd68af00a8693f154f1daf576e6a91a966c6b0909617a412d0471cb15678b6ca0Retained0xe8d566E2f914dbd8309625e1792ed21fD0431956282.382139990140 ETH0x7987458cae1d4424b5555c4a50cda01a31a5b08469cd6ab4c35d9b32acf09b95Forwarded0x888A21c48cF442e312bddd7c24B678f0C7132a2a200.000000 ETH0xd2ef52f0497a693bf3fe25b3584c5ec1b85d901c9ca8c4e0997f5e1a61074f1aForwarded0x3d092740936dA4C5693DaE3633c7207A37F40104199.999911680412 ETH0x0b41b66d5e4158a82b5ca8adacf87a1b96fe79bd9e8da5b38b8c9551f4289a9eForwardedTornado Cash Deposit PathsOn 26 September, three relay wallets deposited 682.3 ETH into the Tornado Cash Router at 0xd90e2f925DA726b50C4Ed8D0Fb90Ad053324F31b. The transactions used the router’s deposit method. The total is calculated from transaction values, not an estimated USD conversion.Source branchRelay walletDeposit window (UTC)CountTotal0xe8d566E2f914dbd8309625e1792ed21fD04319560xF46e1e8Ca9a032f1C84b1451890ad0aedb5E0BeD06:09:35–06:19:599180.0 ETH0x888A21c48cF442e312bddd7c24B678f0C7132a2a0x2072f325f0Bb7e06c1D7C933a10886f794D4CC9906:46:11–07:11:118302.3 ETH0x3d092740936dA4C5693DaE3633c7207A37F401040x21D4A32a357c77e72dCe79810d54C7FCf5A1996907:16:23–07:17:112200.0 ETHTotal3 relays06:09:35–07:17:1119682.3 ETHRelayFirst Tornado deposit transactionLast Tornado deposit transaction0xF46e1e8Ca9a032f1C84b1451890ad0aedb5E0BeD0x7de4955568c12e82d0cea9bc08d18715414c45b612ec270b5fa171ae74775db30x1cfb681a5bb2567ca6c68facbf65f9decc239eedd73248de27193103705a9cf60x2072f325f0Bb7e06c1D7C933a10886f794D4CC990xe5dfd95a2710f45d1749d99c941200f0b5831b25ec92239ff3e9800e60b6dbf20xb9958c2a8828865936c53cac3967434381584e6753d0a09da579972ead8a9de60x21D4A32a357c77e72dCe79810d54C7FCf5A199690x2097d151c2efe641673d3a6e772817c5baefcfbb550d5e0ade1cb49cbd91611a0x0415dc1ff16cc17c6862b9ee27c1ebfbb2e30705d8f5e6157989e7618ecf64f4No centralized-exchange deposit was identified before the mixer deposits. The router entry breaks deterministic forward tracing; it does not identify the controller of any eventual withdrawal.Verified Balances and StatusAddressAsset / balance at 28 Sep cutoffStatus0xAa4985dBDaBfACa344237D40F7E06C4a0BB57E7090,202.821244 genuine USDCLater payout remains visible0xa3dD31d9aD9A7eCAC68c2d2cF6063DfEa7bA3cAe1.000000 ETHRetained branch0xe8d566E2f914dbd8309625e1792ed21fD0431956~0 ETHForwarded to relay0x888A21c48cF442e312bddd7c24B678f0C7132a2a~0 ETHForwarded to relay0x3d092740936dA4C5693DaE3633c7207A37F40104~0 ETHForwarded to relay0x21D4A32a357c77e72dCe79810d54C7FCf5A199690.028009 ETHResidual after depositsThe primary recipient also displays a separate token using the symbol “USDC” at another contract. This report excludes that token and counts only Circle’s Ethereum USDC contract, 0xA0b86991c6218b36c1d19D4a2e9Eb0cE3606eB48.Evidence AssessmentStatementAssessmentBasisTwo bridge batches paid the same recipientConfirmedReceipts and USDC logsBoth calls used verifyRollup and the usual batch posterConfirmedCall data and tx.fromRoughly 683.38 ETH was produced and splitConfirmed at distribution layerETH transfers from 0xb483…3D38682.3 ETH entered Tornado Cash RouterConfirmed19 direct deposit transactionsCompromised key or social engineering caused the incidentNot supported; Payy says initial RCA ruled these outOfficial Payy updateA specific proof-validation or authorization bug caused the incidentUnresolvedNo validated post-mortemA named person or organization controls the walletsUnresolvedNo identity evidenceResponse PrioritiesPriorityActionReason1Preserve both verifyRollup transactions, calldata and validator/prover artifactsNeeded for root-cause reconstruction2Monitor 0xAa49…7E70 and genuine USDC balance90,202.821244 USDC remains visible3Monitor 0xa3dD…3cAe1 ETH remains outside the mixer path4Provide the 19 Tornado deposit hashes to investigatorsPreserves precise entry amounts and times5Publish the validated post-mortem and user-remediation planFailure mode and reimbursement status remain unresolvedConclusionThe strongest forensic conclusion is not merely that Payy’s bridge lost about $1.92 million. The value followed two distinct post-drain states: 90,202.821244 genuine USDC remained at the primary recipient, while nearly all ETH created from the first tranche was split, relayed, and deposited into Tornado Cash less than three days later.The transaction history supports a deliberate laundering sequence. It does not establish the technical root cause or the identity of the operator. Those questions require Payy’s validated post-mortem, preserved rollup artifacts, and any later mixer-withdrawal correlation.SourcesPayy incident noticePayy root-cause updateUnchainedThe Crypto TimesiTokenly incident registryEthereum records: Etherscan and BlockscoutSentinelTX case: b92968a7-ee47-4f17-a260-1e5ebfc16a09

On September 24, 2026, crypto casino Duelbits reported a security incident affecting operational hot wallets across multiple blockchains.Public reporting cited in the investigation estimated the total loss at approximately $7 million, involving Ethereum, Solana, BNB Chain, Bitcoin, and Tron.ChainBounty analyzed the Ethereum leg of the incident, beginning with a confirmed withdrawal from a Duelbits-labeled hot wallet and tracing subsequent ETH movements through newly created intermediary wallets.The investigation identified 20 deposits totaling 1,370 ETH into the Tornado Cash Router between September 26 and September 28.However, the full 1,370 ETH cannot be attributed to the Duelbits incident with equal confidence. Based on transaction-level value paths currently anchored on-chain, up to 1,360 ETH of the Tornado Cash deposits can be explained by the tracked incident flow.No outbound exchange deposit was identified within the investigated path.Executive SummaryFinding Result Incident dateSeptember 24, 2026Blockchain analyzedEthereumConfirmed initial withdrawal836 ETH + 593,430.319285 USDTFirst receiving wallet0xA77e24Fe29d16E051e487ef4Ea7b056cb05aef76Reported consolidation wallet0x8dB9D7f0a03d212c566Ca80c66e294CeCC20C306Observed outbound movement from consolidation wallet1,914.1 ETHReturned to consolidation wallet540.0 ETHTornado Cash deposits observed1,370 ETH across 20 transactionsMaximum explained by tracked incident path1,360 ETHConfirmed exchange deposits in traced outbound flow0Consolidation-wallet balance at investigation snapshot973.536981 ETHInitial receiving-wallet balance at snapshot25.566884 ETHEvidence ClassificationClassification Meaning ConfirmedDirectly supported by transaction-level or address-attribution evidenceObservedTransaction path is directly anchored, but its attribution to the incident may depend on additional contextAnalytical assessmentInterpretation of observed behavior rather than independently proven intentUnverified leadPotentially relevant connection requiring additional evidenceThis distinction is critical throughout the investigation.An address interaction can establish that two entities touched the same infrastructure. It does not, by itself, establish that the investigated funds moved between them.1. Initial Withdrawal From the Duelbits Hot WalletThe Ethereum investigation begins with:0x014435B1E39945CF4f5F0c3cbb5833195A95CC9BThe address was attributed to Duelbits in the attribution data used during the investigation.Its first recorded activity occurred on February 14, 2024.At approximately 09:02 UTC on September 24, two major transfers left the wallet only 36 seconds apart.Time (UTC) Block Asset Amount Destination Transaction 09:02:1126046298USDT593,430.3192850xA77e24...aef760x4f2bc2a8...9bb73909:02:4726046301ETH836 ETH0xA77e24...aef760xcdc0b6dfac...3182dFull transaction hashesAsset Transaction hash USDT0x4f2bc2a8bc5040788c71e712546deec6d0f61529518b8114b0334ffd3e9bb739ETH0xcdc0b6dfacbefe4aef640be1538c9081bbf401ca9ad9784e1b0cfc044523182dThe receiving wallet,0xA77e24Fe29d16E051e487ef4Ea7b056cb05aef76was a previously unseen EOA whose first activity occurred on September 24.At the investigation snapshot, it retained 25.566884 ETH.What the blockchain proves — and what it does notBoth transactions were signed by the Duelbits hot wallet itself.That matters.From Ethereum transaction data alone, an investigator cannot distinguish an authorized withdrawal from a withdrawal executed by someone who obtained legitimate signing authority.The classification of these transactions as part of the reported compromise therefore relies on the incident disclosure and associated public reporting.The Ethereum transactions themselves show ordinary signed transfers rather than direct exploitation of a smart contract.2. The Missing Link to the Consolidation WalletPublic reporting identified the following address as the primary ETH consolidation wallet:0x8dB9D7f0a03d212c566Ca80c66e294CeCC20C306The wallet first became active on September 24.However, the investigation did not identify a direct value transfer from the initial receiver 0xA77e24... to the consolidation wallet 0x8dB9....Instead, two common counterparties were found.Address Activity Sent transactions Snapshot balance Label 0x181a638038a4bd75c207d080de83e217f8e8a1d7September 24 only60.000031 ETHNone0x4293b5dc11b250078da7359d7d57c15eecfcf70aJan. 2018 – Sep. 20263800.000547 ETHNone0x4293... is particularly notable because it sent funds to both the initial receiving wallet and the consolidation wallet.That creates a meaningful investigative lead.It does not yet create a verified value path.The transaction amounts and transaction hashes required to demonstrate that the investigated value moved through these common counterparties were not anchored in the current evidence set.ChainBounty therefore classifies:Connection Status Duelbits hot wallet → 0xA77e...Confirmed0xA77e... → 0x8dB9...Unverified value path0x8dB9... → downstream intermediary walletsObserved and transaction-anchoredDownstream intermediaries → Tornado CashObserved and transaction-anchoredThis gap prevents the entire Ethereum path from being presented as one uninterrupted forensic chain.3. A 0.1 ETH Route TestOn September 24, the consolidation wallet performed a small round-trip transfer involving another address.Direction Amount Transaction Consolidation wallet → 0x922adc...8cd230.1 ETH0x0edf6e07...bfe52b0x922adc...8cd23 → consolidation wallet0.1 ETH0x5eaf7ef1...a3f1aFull hashes:0x0edf6e07817a6d2eafd3f42c3d40c7dcab4756d4375286d48f26654dc9bfe52b0x5eaf7ef13016fd76a822f046935ca7b78f76bc66095249f8a8d8fec2d79a3f1aA 0.1 ETH round trip alone does not prove intent.Placed alongside the substantially larger transactions that followed, however, it is consistent with route validation before larger fund movements.That interpretation remains an analytical assessment rather than a directly provable fact.4. First Laundering Branch: 110 ETHBetween September 26 and September 27, the consolidation wallet began distributing ETH through newly activated intermediary wallets.The first branch started with:0xa31bb1fdf3409ce863bf646b69e6013ca74c38e3Consolidation Wallet → First IntermediaryDate Amount Transaction Sep. 2611 ETH0x2fa0bf95...12fac6Sep. 261 ETH0x928dccb8...286260Sep. 26650 ETH0xd9186462...62d801Total662 ETHMost of that ETH did not continue toward the mixer.First Intermediary → Consolidation WalletDate Returned amount Transaction Sep. 261 ETH0x98d87960...c0d83Sep. 26480 ETH0x391989db...03c1Sep. 2758.9 ETH0x29436031...0c8Total539.9 ETHAnother 111.1 ETH was forwarded to:0xadb82eef7baa2feaebe64f88577c06f803a2c578Date Amount Transaction Sep. 2610.1 ETH0xe4e83e46...896a5Sep. 27101 ETH0xaa3ff3bc...75ff6Total111.1 ETHThat wallet then deposited 110 ETH into the Tornado Cash Router:0xd90e2f925da726b50c4ed8d0fb90ad053324f31bDeposit Amount Transaction 110 ETH0xf12cf53b...d86af2100 ETH0xccaf6baa...5349Total110 ETHThe remaining 1.094278 ETH was returned upstream.This 110 ETH branch is fully explainable using the tracked transaction path.5. Second Laundering Branch: 1,260 ETHThe second and significantly larger movement occurred on September 28.The consolidation wallet transferred 1,252 ETH into a newly active address:0x6495afaeb766e59f3b725e6ef6e5622b44b272c3Consolidation Wallet → 0x6495...Amount Transaction 1 ETH0x2fb2fc01...709e3650 ETH0x72c887a4...b265e601 ETH0x425b31b4...e8a61,252 ETHThat wallet subsequently transferred 1,250 ETH into:0x56644f6a348a142d38fb7dde2e942c9ef03d09fcAmount Transaction 1 ETH0x5b6d00a9...ba07c500 ETH0xe8384b80...cff6f500 ETH0xb9424aa...bdc58249 ETH0x8471f89d...e6b5a1,250 ETHThe final intermediary then executed 18 Tornado Cash deposits.Tornado Cash Deposit StructureDenomination Transactions Total 100 ETH121,200 ETH10 ETH660 ETHTotal181,260 ETHIt also returned 1.905145 ETH upstream.This creates an important accounting issue.Observed activity at 0x56644f... ETH Tracked incident-path inflow1,250Tornado Cash deposits1,260Returned upstream1.905145Total observed outflow1,261.905145Outflow exceeding tracked inflow11.905145The intermediary therefore spent approximately 11.905145 ETH more than it received from the tracked upstream address.The origin of that additional ETH falls outside the investigated outbound path.As a result, ChainBounty does not attribute the full 1,260 ETH from this wallet to the incident.The maximum amount supported by the tracked inflow is 1,250 ETH.6. Why 1,370 ETH Does Not Equal 1,370 ETH of Attributed Incident FundsThe distinction can be summarized as follows.Branch Gross Tornado deposits Maximum explained by tracked incident path First branch110 ETH110 ETHSecond branch1,260 ETH1,250 ETHTotal1,370 ETHUp to 1,360 ETHThis is one of the most important findings in the investigation.The observed wallets deposited 1,370 ETH into Tornado Cash.But evidence-backed attribution should stop at 1,360 ETH unless the additional funding source at 0x56644f... can also be tied to the incident.A clean transaction graph is not the same thing as a proven provenance graph.7. Consolidation-Wallet Flow SummaryThe observed movements from the consolidation wallet can be summarized without double-counting as follows.Flow Amount 0.1 ETH test transfer0.1 ETHFirst intermediary branch662 ETHSecond intermediary branch1,252 ETHGross value sent from consolidation wallet1,914.1 ETHReturned to consolidation wallet540.0 ETHGross Tornado deposits from downstream wallets1,370 ETHConsolidation-wallet balance at snapshot973.536981 ETHThe wallet's complete inbound history was not reconstructed as part of this outbound tracing exercise.The 973.536981 ETH balance should therefore not automatically be treated as entirely stolen Duelbits funds.It is a monitored balance associated with the reported consolidation wallet, not a fully attributed recovery amount.8. The Laundering TypologyThe downstream activity shows several notable behavioral characteristics.Pattern Observation Assessment Small route test0.1 ETH sent and returnedConsistent with route validationDisposable EOAsFour intermediaries became active on the day they were usedConsistent with single-purpose routing infrastructureProgressive scaling110 ETH mixed before a later 1,260 ETH batchConsistent with testing before larger deploymentFixed denominations12 × 100 ETH and 6 × 10 ETH depositsConsistent with denomination-based mixer structuringBalance cleanupResidual ETH returned upstreamSuggests temporary wallets were cleaned after routingShort wallet lifespanIntermediaries showed only a small number of outgoing transactionsConsistent with operational compartmentalizationThe pattern is more structured than simply forwarding stolen ETH directly into a mixer.The sequence suggests an operator using temporary addresses, validating routes, scaling transaction size, and cleaning residual balances after use.This is a behavioral assessment. It does not, by itself, identify the operator.9. Address Poisoning Was Removed From the GraphDuring transaction review, ChainBounty identified 32 transactions consistent with address-poisoning activity.These transactions involved addresses deliberately resembling wallets in the investigation, often sharing similar starting and ending characters.Some also transferred fake assets named similarly to ETH rather than native ETH.Poisoning SummaryImitation address Target address Events Economic relevance 0x922a86...6cd230x922adc...8cd231Fake ETH-, no native ETH0xa31bb2...138e30xa31bb1...c38e313Fake ETH-, no native ETH0x6495e2...972c30x6495af...272c32Fake ETH-0xadb80c...1c5780xadb82e...2c5787Fake ETH-0x8db9cb...ec3060x8dB9D7...0C3067Zero-value native transfers0x5664cf...c09fc0x56644f...d09fc2Fake ETH-Total32ExcludedThese transactions were excluded because they showed no meaningful economic value flow and matched common address-poisoning characteristics.Including them would create false graph edges and potentially corrupt attribution.This is an important reminder that transaction-history proximity is not equivalent to financial linkage.10. No Exchange Cash-Out Was IdentifiedWithin the investigated outbound Ethereum flow:Destination category Confirmed deposits Centralized exchanges0Tornado Cash Router20 transactions / 1,370 ETH grossPublic reporting referenced Kraken and ChangeHero in connection with activity involving the consolidation wallet.Those references concerned claimed inbound flows into the wallet, rather than confirmed cash-out destinations in the outbound path analyzed here.ChainBounty therefore does not identify Kraken or ChangeHero as laundering destinations based on the present evidence.11. What the Ethereum Transactions Suggest About the Initial CompromiseThe initial ETH and USDT withdrawals were ordinary signed transactions.Observation Implication ETH moved via a standard native transferNo obvious Ethereum contract exploit in the transaction itselfUSDT moved through a standard token transferConsistent with valid signing authority being usedETH and USDT transfers occurred 36 seconds apartIndicates coordinated executionPublic reporting describes multiple chains affected in a narrow time windowBroader signing or withdrawal infrastructure compromise is plausibleThe available evidence is therefore more consistent with compromise of withdrawal signing authority than with a vulnerability in an Ethereum smart contract.Possible mechanisms could include exposure of private keys or compromise of infrastructure authorized to sign withdrawals.The blockchain cannot determine which mechanism occurred.That question requires off-chain evidence such as key-management records, signing-service logs, server telemetry, access logs, or other internal forensic material.12. The Most Interesting Unresolved AddressOne address differs significantly from the disposable infrastructure surrounding the incident:0x4293b5dc11b250078da7359d7d57c15eecfcf70aCharacteristic Observation First activityJanuary 5, 2018Activity lifespanMore than eight yearsOutgoing transactions380Interaction with initial receiverYesInteraction with consolidation walletYesAttributionUnknownThere are two materially different explanations.Hypothesis Investigative significance Operator-controlled gas or funding infrastructureCould expose older transactions, KYC-linked services, or reused infrastructureBridge solver, relayer, or other shared serviceMay have little or no attribution valueCurrent evidence cannot distinguish between them.The wallet should therefore be treated as a high-priority lead rather than evidence of attacker ownership.13. Remaining Investigative OpportunitiesPriority Investigative target Why it matters 10x4293...Could connect short-lived incident wallets to long-lived infrastructure20x8dB9... balanceFuture transfers may reach a bridge, exchange, or additional mixer3593,430.319285 USDT pathUSDT may remain technically freezeable depending on downstream disposition40xA77e... → 0x8dB9... gapClosing this gap would strengthen end-to-end provenance5Tornado Cash exitsPotential exit candidates can be evaluated against later exchange deposits6Non-Ethereum chainsSolana, BNB Chain, Bitcoin, and Tron remain outside this Ethereum-focused investigationAt the investigation snapshot, the two monitored wallets held:Wallet Balance 0x8dB9D7...0C306973.536981 ETH0xA77e24...aef7625.566884 ETHThe original 593,430.319285 USDT transfer also remains a significant unresolved asset path.If USDT remains in token form at an identifiable downstream address, issuer-level intervention may still be relevant.14. Fund-Flow Timeline15. ChainBounty AssessDate Event Amount Sep. 24Duelbits-labeled wallet → 0xA77e...593,430.319285 USDTSep. 24Duelbits-labeled wallet → 0xA77e...836 ETHSep. 24Consolidation wallet route test0.1 ETHSep. 26Consolidation wallet → first intermediary12 ETHSep. 26Consolidation wallet → first intermediary650 ETHSep. 26–27First intermediary → consolidation wallet539.9 ETH returnedSep. 26–27First laundering branch → Tornado Cash110 ETHSep. 28Consolidation wallet → second intermediary1,252 ETHSep. 28Second intermediary → final intermediary1,250 ETHSep. 28Final intermediary → Tornado Cash1,260 ETH gross15. ChainBounty AssessmentThe Ethereum evidence supports a clear downstream laundering pattern:short-lived EOAs → staged routing → fixed-denomination mixer deposits → residual-balance cleanup.It also supports a confirmed initial withdrawal of 836 ETH and 593,430.319285 USDT from a Duelbits-attributed wallet.What the evidence does not yet support is equally important.The value path between the first receiving wallet 0xA77e... and the reported consolidation wallet 0x8dB9... remains unanchored.And while downstream wallets deposited 1,370 ETH into Tornado Cash, the transaction-level incident path explains up to 1,360 ETH, not necessarily the full amount.That is the line ChainBounty draws between observation and attribution.ConclusionThe Ethereum portion of the Duelbits incident shows a structured laundering operation built around temporary wallets and Tornado Cash.A Duelbits-labeled hot wallet transferred 836 ETH and 593,430.319285 USDT to a newly activated address on September 24.Separately, ETH leaving the publicly reported consolidation wallet can be followed through four short-lived intermediary EOAs into the Tornado Cash Router.Those wallets deposited:Metric Amount Gross Tornado Cash deposits1,370 ETHNumber of deposits20Maximum explained by tracked incident path1,360 ETHConfirmed exchange cash-out0The distinction between 1,370 ETH observed and 1,360 ETH attributable is not a technicality.It is the difference between describing what appeared in a wallet's transaction history and demonstrating where investigated value actually came from.The investigation also remains incomplete at a critical point: the first recipient and the reported consolidation wallet have shared counterparties, but the value path connecting them has not yet been transaction-anchored.For that reason, ChainBounty does not present the case as a fully closed end-to-end flow.The next breakthroughs are more likely to come from closing that missing link, tracing the USDT path, analyzing the long-lived 0x4293... address, and monitoring the remaining ETH for interaction with identifiable services.Because in on-chain investigations, the goal is not to draw the cleanest graph.It is to know exactly which edges can be proven.Investigation MetadataField Value Case IDCASE-7907CC26NetworkEthereum — Chain ID 1Incident dateSeptember 24, 2026Investigation windowAugust 23 – September 28, 2026Gross Tornado deposits observed1,370 ETHIncident-path attributionUp to 1,360 ETHExchange deposits identified0This report is based on observable on-chain transaction data and address-attribution information available during the investigation. Statements describing behavior, intent, compromise mechanism, or operator infrastructure are analytical assessments unless explicitly identified as transaction-level facts.

Executive SummaryBitget confirmed unauthorized transfers from hot wallets at 18:31 UTC on 24 September 2026. The exchange stated that cold wallets were not affected and that its protection fund exceeded $464 million. Public reporting placed the loss at approximately $351.6 million.SentinelTX expanded the investigation to 289 addresses and 41 evidence items across Ethereum, Arbitrum, Avalanche and BNB Chain. The pattern is consistent with a hot-wallet signing or key compromise: one consolidation EOA appeared across chains, stablecoins were rapidly swapped into ETH, funds crossed bridges, and Ethereum proceeds were split into fixed-size tranches.The clearest recovery lead is 20,763,612.55 USDC routed from Avalanche and Arbitrum through a common receiver into a Circle-labeled address. No centralized-exchange deposit or mixer exposure was confirmed in the reviewed scope.Incident AnchorsItemValueStatusEvidenceOfficial confirmation24 Sep 2026, 18:31 UTCConfirmedBitget statementPublic loss estimate$351.6MReportedCEO / mediaSentinelTX scope289 addresses; 41 evidence itemsConfirmedCase outputCEX or mixer exposureNone confirmedOpenReviewed scopeCore Wallet MatrixRoleAddressChainEvidencePrimary consolidation0x770b10b273fC44Fe9197D6bF20F145c2e98463EeMulti-chainHighUSDT0-to-ETH swap0xe410a2e5710ee787bcaa63f52a3943ff71f0d946ArbitrumHighStablecoin receiver0xb3fa262d0fb521cc93be83d87b322b8a23daf3f0Arbitrum / AvalancheHighCircle-labeled route0xfd78ee919681417d192449715b2594ab58f5d002Multi-chainHigh label; destination openEthereum source0x469Ac1406dE92f82C0563477240a3627057425DCEthereumHighEthereum hub0xa6dd3f218b65e32ccc37be30f74884133c655545EthereumHigh inbound; mixed outflowAvalanche downstream0x5085b3d52b5587c18ef456fcbcde9a11d48340f8AvalancheHighBNB downstream0x7c96279ec1e888aa56b9b836e0db26ca48573e1cBNB ChainHighWhat the Cross-Chain Flow ShowsThe primary consolidation address was active on Ethereum as early as 7 February 2026, contradicting descriptions of it as newly created. TRDB labels on two upstream addresses are useful leads, but do not independently prove Bitget ownership.Confirmed Chain-Level MovementsChainConfirmed movementActionConfidenceEthereum1,541.51 ETHSource to distribution hubHighArbitrum19,668,851.77 USDT0 → 7,111.344304 ETHSwap and splitHighAvalanche821,000 AVAX + 8,204,678.8 USDCTwo downstream routesHighBNB Chain12,719.45 BNBRouter-linked downstreamHigh; partial pathArbitrum: Swap, Split and Partial Stablecoin RecoveryOn Arbitrum, 19,668,851.77 USDT0 reached a dedicated swap wallet and was converted through UniswapX and 1inch intents into 7,111.344304 ETH. One branch converted 2,513 ETH into 6,561,140.178933 USDC; another 26,830.363654 USDC joined the same receiver before the route reached a Circle-labeled address.Key TransactionsChainTransactionMovementStatusEthereum0xbb7f4d68c339f44e048b45bcee466bc75a086fc02d89cda8242b5031639bf8b41,541.51 ETH → hubIncident-anchoredEthereum0x872dd53e25e071ae7ae6b653a44ff18cfc041e8fdea4ac0da72c6ef97ba4ede110,000 ETHGross hub outflow onlyEthereum0xd955a11839263c24e49ddb850b17663d0122904cee1fb9c436e04203a88ec28810,000 ETHGross hub outflow onlyEthereum: Anchored Inflow vs. Gross Hub ActivityA confirmed transaction moved 1,541.51 ETH from the Ethereum source to the hub. The hub later sent several much larger tranches. Those gross outflows cannot all be attributed to this incident because only the 1,541.51 ETH inbound is directly anchored to the investigated path.Bridges, Routers and Recovery LeadsInteraction with a router or bridge does not mean that service controlled the attacker.PriorityAddress / serviceObserved amountAction10xfd78ee919681417d192449715b2594ab58f5d002 / Circle20,763,612.55 USDCPreserve and freeze route20xe35e9842fceaca96570b734083f4a58e8f7c5f2a / Across1,600 ETHTrace destinations30xef4fb24ad0916217251f553c0596f8edc630eb66 / deBridge1.001213 ETHPreserve destination tx40x2bca667d37afe8d065ca46e3261e9442e77cbeae~1,997 ETH residualMonitor and trace50x5085b3d52b5587c18ef456fcbcde9a11d48340f8~620,999.99991 AVAXMonitor and traceWhat Remains UnprovenNo threat actor has been identified. No evidence confirms a CEX deposit or mixer. The direct link from the multi-chain consolidation address to 0x469Ac1406dE92f82C0563477240a3627057425DC was not independently confirmed; it remains a third-party Bubblemaps claim. Zero-value and tiny lookalike transfers were excluded as address-poisoning noise.Untraced RemainderChainUnresolved amount / pathNext stepEthereumMuch of 34.75M USDT/USDC; hub downstreamSeparate incident funds from prior activityArbitrum~1,997 ETH + ~990 ETH; Across destinationsTrace destination chainsAvalanche~620,999.99991 AVAX; router outputResolve router recipientsBNB Chain~9,719.45 BNBTrace beyond shared routersConclusionThe evidence confirms coordinated cross-chain dispersal and a high-priority Circle recovery route, while leaving substantial balances and several bridge destinations unresolved. The urgent action is preservation and freeze outreach for the Circle-labeled path, followed by destination tracing for Across and deBridge.Evidence note: wallet balances and labels reflect the SentinelTX investigation cutoff. Public statements, third-party labels and analytical inference are separated from transaction-confirmed facts.