The Scale and Characteristics of Cryptocurrency Hacking Losses in Early 2026 Cryptocurrency is lauded as an innovative financial technology of the 21st century, yet it simultaneously faces new forms of security threats. The numerous hacking incidents recorded in 2025 and early 2026 clearly demonstrate the extent of risks lurking behind the convenience brought by the digitalization of currency. Notably, recent figures suggest that these threats are not merely confined to technical flaws; rather, human behavior and inadequate security measures are emerging as serious issues. According to a monthly report released by blockchain security research firm NOMINIS on March 9, 2026, cryptocurrency hacking losses reported in February 2025 alone amounted to approximately $49.3 million (about 68 billion KRW). While this figure appears significantly lower compared to the $127 million recorded in January 2026, it cannot be viewed solely positively, as it was heavily influenced by a single incident. Indeed, over 60% of the total losses in February 2025, amounting to $30 million (about 41.5 billion KRW), originated from an infrastructure breach at a single platform called Step Finance. Such incidents once again demonstrate that a single vulnerability in a specific infrastructure can lead to immense losses, revealing the paradox that even decentralized financial systems can harbor centralized points of weakness. More alarmingly, a staggering $2.1 billion was stolen throughout 2025 due to cryptocurrency hacks and scams. This represents an increasing trend year-over-year, indicating that security issues within the crypto ecosystem are not short-term problems but rather structural challenges. Entering 2026, $127 million was already siphoned off in January alone, raising concerns that the total losses for the year could further escalate. These statistics clearly show that as the cryptocurrency market grows, so does the target for hackers. Alongside this, attack types targeting individual users also warrant attention. During February 2025, the most commonly observed attack methods included phishing approvals, malicious signatures, and the relatively lesser-known technique of Address Poisoning. Address Poisoning is a cunning method where attackers insert similar-looking addresses into a victim's transaction history, tricking the victim into mistakenly sending funds to the attacker's wallet address. This clearly exemplifies attacks that exploit human psychological or behavioral vulnerabilities rather than relying on highly technical flaws. The NOMINIS report emphasized that the most significant vulnerabilities in the cryptocurrency ecosystem lie not in complex technical flaws but in human behavior and transaction approval processes, demanding a paradigm shift in security strategies. Persistent Human Behavioral Vulnerabilities at the Core of Security Issues Furthermore, cross-chain bridge protocols related to cryptocurrency transactions are also becoming major targets. An incident in mid-February 2025, where the cross-chain bridge platform CrossCurve was hacked, supports this. Attackers exploited a flaw in the smart contract's verification logic, causing losses of approximately $3 million (about 4.2 billion KRW), which stemmed from a security issue during the processing of cross-chain messages on the Axelar network. Specifically, insufficient access control during the bridge's smart contract verification of cross-chain messages from Axelar was the problem. Attackers exploited this vulnerability to forge malicious cross-chain messages, deceiving the system and siphoning off funds. This serves as a warning that bridge technology, designed to enhance interoperability between blockchains, can create new attack surfaces. Security issues at the institutional level are also continuously being highlighted. U.S.-based blockchain fintech platform Figure Technology suffered losses in February 2025 due to vulnerabilities in its internal infrastructure. According to a detailed analysis by security firm Halborn, attackers exploited weaknesses in the internal infrastructure to access sensitive systems of the blockchain-based financial services platform. This case clearly exposed the security problems that can arise when traditional finance and blockchain-based systems converge. Fintech platforms like Figure Technology operate at the intersection of traditional financial infrastructure and blockchain technology, and such hybrid environments risk inheriting vulnerabilities from both systems. This served as a reminder of the need to strengthen operational security across the entire enterprise, beyond mere technical flaws, demonstrating that human error and flawed design can, in the long run, compromise the system itself in highly digital financial environments like blockchain and fintech. However, pointing out these security issues does not merely expose problems. Past cases also serve as indicators of how rapidly the cryptocurrency ecosystem is chan