CoinDCX Loses $16M in USDT After Automated Sweeper Failure
Indian exchange CoinDCX lost 15.99 million USDT after automated sweeping services failed for deprecated deposit addresses following a July security breach.

Indian cryptocurrency exchange CoinDCX suffered a loss of 15.99 million USDT after deposits accumulated in deprecated wallets when its automated sweeping service stopped working, according to CryptoNews.
The security incident followed a July 2025 breach that prompted the exchange to replace its compromised infrastructure and instruct customers to use new deposit addresses. However, some users continued sending funds to the old addresses. CoinDCX credited customer accounts immediately upon receipt while a separate service was meant to sweep the funds into secure custody. In October, that secondary transfer process failed.
Instant Telegram notifications for large on-chain moves.
Blockchain Tracing and Recovery
Blockchain analytics firm Bitquery traced 40 affected TRON addresses, identifying a single wallet holding approximately 15.82 million USDT from 88 deposits that had not been moved. The analysis found fee top-ups to affected deposit addresses followed by routine transfers. According to Bitquery, about 9.63 million USDT reached addresses associated with other exchanges, and Tether froze approximately 2.21 million USDT.
CoinDCX stated that it noticed unusual activity on October 21 and irregular onchain movements the next day. The exchange absorbed the 15.99 million USDT loss itself, maintaining that customer balances, active wallets, and trading systems remained unaffected.
Key facts
- CoinDCX lost 15.99 million USDT after automated sweeping services failed.
- The compromised wallets were deprecated following a July 2025 security breach.
- Bitquery traced 40 affected TRON addresses holding unmovable funds.
- Tether froze approximately 2.21 million USDT associated with the incident.
Source: crypto.news
This article is for information only and is not investment advice. BullishMarketCap news is produced with AI assistance from public sources and reviewed by our editors; see our editorial policy. Spotted an error? Tell us.

