Why Are Exchange Hacks Still Happening in 2025?

[Aesthatic girl]

It’s frustrating to still see breaches, but the upside is clear: each incident drives sharper innovation. With rising adoption of MPC, decentralized custody layers, and real-time anomaly tracking, the space is moving fast toward better resilience. The future lies in transparent, hybrid models that combine user control with institutional-grade security.

 

[SUNSHINE]

If exchanges still get drained despite advanced tech, maybe it’s not about tools—it’s about trust. Some platforms might be security theaters run by insiders gaming the system. At this point, blaming “bad ops” feels like a cop-out. Maybe it’s time users stop trusting platforms that won’t open their books.

 

[Snowy]

It’s wild how far security tech has come—MPC, multi-sig, AI threat detection—and yet the real vulnerability remains human. But this also means we’re on the edge of a trust revolution. With smarter tools and growing user demand for transparency, the future looks brighter for platforms that evolve or get left behind.

 

[Ruksh]

Honestly at this point I feel like some of these exchanges are held together with duct tape, expired Red Bull, and a prayer to Satoshi. You can have all the MPC fairy dust and multi-sig sorcery in the world, but if Brad from accounting is selling private keys for concert tickets, it’s game over.

 

[Munashak]

it’s starting to feel like no amount of tech can fully cover for weak internal controls. Even with the best infrastructure, if the people behind the scenes aren’t trustworthy or processes are sloppy, it’s only a matter of time. Hard not to get uneasy seeing this pattern repeat.

 

[Emma]

From an economist’s perspective, this pattern reflects the classic tension between technological advancement and incentive misalignment. No matter how sophisticated the security stack becomes, centralized custodians consolidate value in ways that create persistent moral hazard. When the cost of insider malfeasance remains outweighed by potential private gains especially in opaque or poorly regulated environments operational vulnerabilities endure. This isn’t solely a technical failure but an institutional one, where governance structures lag behind the financial incentives driving bad actors.

Well said—tech can evolve fast, but without aligned governance, the same old incentive flaws keep the door open for systemic risk.

 

[Mary]

Tech stacks have evolved, but no amount of multi-sig or MPC can fix weak internal controls, opaque governance, or misaligned incentives. Most breaches today aren’t purely technical they’re operational failures disguised as exploits. Some platforms were architected in an era of lax security assumptions and retrofitting them is like bolting modern avionics onto a 70s fighter jet. At a certain point, rebuilds make more sense than patches.

Exactly—when legacy systems hit their design limits, it’s often smarter to rebuild from the ground up than keep patching over structural flaws.

 

[Isla]

Solid points raised here. While tech like MPC wallets and multi-sig have raised the bar for external threats, insider risks remain one of the hardest vectors to mitigate. It’s not always about bad operational security, but sometimes about governance gaps, misaligned incentives, or unchecked internal access. Some platforms may need a complete overhaul in security culture and transparency rather than just patching systems. The infrastructure is improving, but trust frameworks and accountability protocols need to evolve alongside it.

Totally agree—true resilience isn’t just about better tech, but building trust frameworks and governance that evolve with the infrastructure.

 

[SUNSHINE]

From an economist’s perspective, this pattern reflects the classic tension between technological advancement and incentive misalignment. No matter how sophisticated the security stack becomes, centralized custodians consolidate value in ways that create persistent moral hazard. When the cost of insider malfeasance remains outweighed by potential private gains especially in opaque or poorly regulated environments operational vulnerabilities endure. This isn’t solely a technical failure but an institutional one, where governance structures lag behind the financial incentives driving bad actors.

Exactly—tech can only go so far when governance and incentives are misaligned. Until institutional frameworks evolve to match the complexity of these systems, centralized custodians will remain a structural risk.

 

[peterjohn]

It’s likely a mix—many hacks point to weak internal security and lack of proper oversight. While tech tools are strong, without solid governance and accountability, even top-tier systems can be compromised. Some exchanges may need deep structural changes, not just security patches.

Agreed—most breaches expose not just technical gaps but organizational flaws in governance and risk management. Strong tooling means little without proper oversight and accountability frameworks. Long term, exchanges that invest in structural reforms will likely set the standard for security resilience.