•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The hacker behind the Balancer V2 exploit has converted 14,300 ETH into 419.3 BTC, according to on-chain activity flagged by monitoring services. The cross-chain swap is among the largest single-transaction conversions tied to the exploit wallets, and it raises new questions about how effectively stolen funds can be recovered and traced.
The wallet linked to the Balancer exploiter executed a conversion of 14,300 ETH into 419.3 BTC. At prevailing market rates, the transaction represents tens of millions of dollars moving from Ethereum-native assets into Bitcoin.
Reporting cited by Cryptopolitan describes the swap as a significant acceleration of a pattern in which the exploiter has been trading ETH holdings into BTC. Because the funds trace back to exploited Balancer V2 smart contracts, each subsequent movement from these wallets can be part of a broader laundering chain.
Balancer V2 suffered a major exploit on November 3, 2025. A post-mortem published by the Balancer team described how the attacker drained funds from the protocol’s liquidity pools.
Check Point later published a technical analysis stating the attacker exploited a rounding error vulnerability to drain approximately $128 million from Balancer.
In response, the Balancer community pursued recovery efforts through governance proposals. One proposal, BIP-892, addressed the distribution of rescued funds from the initial response. Another, BIP-908, outlined a recovery assistance offer targeting approximately 21,000 ETH held in dormant exploit wallets.
The move to Bitcoin can provide advantages for an attacker, including deep liquidity across major exchanges and a different ecosystem from Ethereum-based monitoring and controls. Once funds are converted into BTC, they operate on a separate network with different surveillance and tooling.
The article also notes that Coin Edition reported the Balancer hacker appeared to copy laundering routes previously used in the KelpDAO exploit, including routing funds through THORChain to bridge between chains. The described behavior suggests the attacker may be following an established playbook.
The ETH-to-BTC conversion may reduce the odds of recovering the specific funds targeted by Balancer’s BIP-908 proposal, which focused on dormant ETH in exploit wallets. By moving and converting the assets, the attacker effectively shifts the funds outside the recovery framework described in that proposal.
More broadly, the Balancer case highlights a recurring challenge for DeFi: even after exploits are identified and post-mortems are published, attackers can use the time between the exploit and subsequent fund movement to plan exit and laundering strategies.
The article also points to enforcement difficulties in cross-chain contexts, noting that cross-chain swaps can complicate jurisdiction and tracing even when authorities act on illicit flows. It further contrasts the speed of governance processes with the speed of on-chain transactions, suggesting that community recovery mechanisms may lag behind attacker activity.
A wallet linked to the Balancer V2 exploit converted 14,300 ETH into 419.3 BTC, moving stolen funds from the Ethereum network into Bitcoin.
The article cites Bitcoin’s deep liquidity, its separate network from Ethereum-based monitoring tools, and the availability of privacy tools that can obscure fund flows.
Yes. The conversion moves funds outside the dormant ETH recovery focus described in Balancer’s BIP-908 proposal, making recovery more difficult.
Security researchers documented that the attacker drained approximately $128 million from Balancer V2 through a rounding error exploitation in the protocol’s smart contracts.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Cryptocurrency and digital asset markets carry significant risk. Always do your own research before making decisions.
Premium gym chains are entering a “golden era” that is ending or already in decline, as rising operating costs collide with shifting consumer preferences toward more flexible, community-based ways to exercise. Long-term memberships are shrinking, margins are pressured by higher rents and facility expenses, and competition from smaller, more personalized…
