Preço de Trust Wallet (Portal)TWT

Here's how TrustWallet was hacked, and why it was so devastating TrustWallet team breaks silence: Will losses be compensated? Binance-backed TrustWallet, one of the most popular self-custody wallets in crypto, suffered an eccentric hack. Malefactors managed to intercept seed phrases, restore wallets autonomously and stole over $7 million in various cryptos. Here's how TrustWallet was hacked, and why it was so devastating Today, Dec. 26, 2025, TrustWallet, a mainsteram multichain crypto wallet, suffered a hacker attack. As unveiled by cybersecurity researchers, malicious code — JavaScript payload — was injected into the v2.68.0 build for TrustWallet's browser extension for Google Chrome. So here’s what’s happening :In the Trust Wallet browser extension code 4482.jsa recent update added hidden code that silently sends wallet data outsideIt pretends to be analytics, but it tracks wallet activity and triggers when a seed phrase is importedThe data was sent to… pic.twitter.com/8kkMUkDYql— Akinator | Testnet Arc (@0xakinator) December 25, 2025 TrustWallet deployed the infected Chrome extension v2.68.0 on Dec. 24, 2025. Shortly after, users who imported or accessed their seed via this version started losing funds immediately. Technically, the vector of attack was the following: the malicious software element was recognized by the wallet as an analytics module. Instead, it managed to access seed phrases and send them to the domains created days ago. To prevent this from being disclosed, the domains were masked using "TrustWallet Metrics," "TrustWallet Metrics API" and similar titles. At the same time, once mnemonics leaked, malefactors just restored ("imported") wallets on their infrastructure and legitimately withdrew the funds. This design made the hack incredibly dangerous and quiet; with seed phrases hijacked by bad actors, approval, authorization or even opening the wallet opening is not needed. That is why the only recommendation from security researchers was to switch off the computers with installed TrustWallets from the internet. I spoke with one of the TW team members anonymously, and from what I know, if you have the TW extension in Google and you have money there, disconnect the computer on which it is installed from the network and the Internet. This will minimise damage. https://t.co/zmUNzxaW7g— Vladimir S. | Officer's Notes (@officer_secret) December 25, 2025 The attack affected funds on Bitcoin (BTC), Solana (SOL), BNB Smart Chain (BSC) and a number of EVM ecosystem L2s. TrustWallet team breaks silence: Will losses be compensated? The loot was immediately sent to ChangeNOW, FixedFloat, KuCoin and HTX. At first, users were not even able to count how much crypto was stolen. According to the official statement by TrustWallet, the net sum of losses totals $7 million in equivalent. The developers have already released the v2.69.0 build and encourage everyone to upgrade to it. Update on the Trust Wallet Browser Extension (v2.68) incident:We’ve confirmed that approximately $7M has been impacted and we will ensure all affected users are refunded.Supporting affected users is our top priority, and we are actively finalizing the process to refund the… https://t.co/2XRx8GvZ75— Trust Wallet (@TrustWallet) December 26, 2025 The TrustWallet team assured that every victim will be refunded. The exact details of the compensation program are yet to be announced. TWT's price immediately dropped to $0.76, the lowest since mid-September, losing 8% in no time. By press time, the losses have been absorbed.

The fallout from Trust Wallets Chrome extension incident intensified on December 26 after Changpeng Zhao (CZ), weighed in publicly, suggesting the breach may have involved an insider. The comment came as Trust Wallet confirmed that roughly $7 million in user funds have been affected so far. Insider Access as Key Line of Investigation CZ said Trust Wallet will fully reimburse impacted users and stressed that customer funds remain safe. However, he added that investigators are still examining how a compromised browser extension update was able to pass through distribution controls, calling an insider role most likely. The statement amplified concerns around internal access and update governance, rather than an external exploit alone. Most likely. CZ 🔶 BNB (@cz_binance) December 26, 2025 Trust Wallet later confirmed that the incident affected Browser Extension version 2.68 only, reiterating that mobile users and other versions were not impacted. The company said it is finalizing reimbursement procedures and will issue clear instructions to affected users. Meanwhile, users should remain cautious against phishing attempts posing as official support. Update on the Trust Wallet Browser Extension (v2.68) incident:Weve confirmed that approximately $7M has been impacted and we will ensure all affected users are refunded.Supporting affected users is our top priority, and we are actively finalizing the process to refund the https://t.co/2XRx8GvZ75 Trust Wallet (@TrustWallet) December 26, 2025 The insider angle has drawn particular attention within the crypto security community. Browser extensions require signing keys, developer credentials, and approval workflows to publish updates. For a malicious or compromised build to be distributed through the official Chrome Web Store, investigators typically look at either credential compromise or direct internal access. Both scenarios point to weaknesses in operational security rather than a traditional software vulnerability. Such risks are not theoretical. Over the past year, several high-profile browser extension incidents have stemmed from hijacked developer accounts or compromised release pipelines. TWT Token Briefly Dips Before Rebounding Market reaction reflected the uncertainty. Trust Wallets native token, TWT, saw a sharp sell-off following the initial reports on December 25. However, prices stabilized and rebounded on December 26 after confirmation that losses were limited and refunds would be issued. TWT Token Price Chart. Source: CoinGecko While Trust Wallet has moved quickly to contain the incident, the episode reflects a broader industry challenge. As crypto wallets increasingly rely on browser extensions, update security and insider risk management are emerging as critical attack surfaces, not secondary concerns. Read the article at BeInCrypto

Trust Wallet told users to disable its Chrome browser extension version 2.68 after the company acknowledged a security incident and pushed version 2.69 on Dec. 25, following reports of wallet drains tied to the Dec. 24 update. According to BleepingComputer, victims and researchers began flagging thefts soon after 2.68 rolled out. Early public tallies placed losses in a $6 million to $7 million-plus range across multiple chains. The Chrome Web Store listing shows Trust Wallet extension version 2.69 as “Updated: December 25, 2025,” anchoring the vendor’s patch timing to the day the incident entered wider circulation. The same listing displays about 1,000,000 users. That frames a worst-case ceiling for reach. Practical exposure hinges on how many people installed 2.68 and entered sensitive data while it was active. Trust Wallet’s guidance focused on the browser extension release. The outlet said mobile users and other versions of the extension were unaffected. Reporting to date has concentrated on a specific user action during the 2.68 window. Researchers flag elevated risks tied to Trust Wallet browser extension update BleepingComputer said researchers and incident trackers tied the highest risk to users who imported or entered a seed phrase after installing the affected version. A seed phrase can unlock current and future addresses derived from it. The outlet also reported that researchers reviewing the 2.68 bundle flagged suspicious logic in a JavaScript file, including references to a file labeled “4482.js.” They said the logic could transmit wallet secrets to an external host. Researchers also cautioned that technical indicators were still being assembled as investigators published their findings. The same coverage warned of secondary scams, including copycat “fix” domains. Those lures attempt to trick users into handing over recovery phrases under the guise of remediation. For users, the difference between upgrading and remediating matters. Updating to 2.69 can remove suspected malicious or unsafe behavior from the extension going forward. It does not automatically protect assets if a seed phrase or private key was already exposed. In that case, standard incident response steps include moving funds to new addresses created from a new seed phrase. Users should also check for and revoke token approvals where feasible. Users should treat any system that handled the phrase as suspect until it is rebuilt or verified clean. Those actions can be operationally costly for retail users. They require re-establishing positions across chains and applications. In some cases, they also force a choice between speed and precision when gas costs and bridging risks are part of the recovery path. The episode also puts focus on the browser extension trust model. Extensions sit at a sensitive seam between web apps and signing flows Any compromise can target the same inputs users rely on to verify a transaction. Academic research on Chrome Web Store extension detection has described how malicious or compromised extensions can evade automated review. It has also described how detection can degrade as attacker tactics change over time. According to an arXiv paper on supervised machine-learning detection of malicious extensions, “concept drift” and evolving behaviors can erode the effectiveness of static approaches. That point becomes more concrete when a wallet extension update is suspected of harvesting secrets through obfuscated client-side logic. Trust Wallet’s next disclosures will set the boundaries for how the story settles. A vendor post-mortem that documents root cause, publishes verified indicators (domains, hashes, bundle identifiers), and clarifies scope would help wallet providers, exchanges, and security teams develop targeted checks and user instructions. Absent that, incident totals tend to remain unstable. Victim reports can arrive late, on-chain clustering can be refined, and investigators can still be resolving whether separate drainers share infrastructure or are opportunistic copycats. Token markets reflected the news with movement but not a single-direction repricing. The latest quoted figures provided for Trust Wallet Token (TWT) showed a last price of $0.83487, up $0.01 (0.02%) from the prior close. The figures showed an intraday high of $0.8483 and an intraday dip to $0.767355. Trust Wallet Token Price TWT metric Value (USD) Last price $0.83487 Change vs. prior close +$0.01 (+0.02%) Intraday high $0.8483 Intraday low $0.767355 Loss accounting remains in flux. The current best-public anchor is the $6 million to $7 million-plus range reported in the first 48 to 72 hours after 2.68 circulated. That range can still shift for routine reasons in theft investigations Those include delayed victim reporting, address reclassification, and improved visibility into cross-chain swaps and cash-out routes. A practical forward range over the next two to eight weeks can be framed as scenarios tied to measurable swing variables. Those include whether the compromise path was confined to seed entry on 2.68, whether additional capture paths are confirmed, and how quickly copycat “fix” lures are removed. Forward-looking projections Scenario (next 2–8 weeks) Working loss range Share Contained $6M–$12M 40% Moderate expansion $15M–$25M 35% Severe revision $25M 25% The incident lands amid broader scrutiny of how retail-facing crypto software handles secrets on general-purpose devices. 2025 theft reporting has been large enough to draw policy and platform attention. Incidents tied to software distribution also reinforce calls for build integrity controls, including reproducible builds, split-key signing, and clearer rollback options when a hotfix is needed. For wallet extensions, the near-term practical outcome is simpler. Users must decide whether they ever entered a seed phrase while 2.68 was installed, because that single action determines whether upgrading is enough or whether they need to rotate secrets and move funds. Trust Wallet’s guidance remains to disable the 2.68 extension and upgrade to 2.69 from the Chrome Web Store. Users who imported or entered a seed phrase while running 2.68 should treat that seed as compromised and migrate assets to a new wallet. Trust Wallet has now confirmed that approximately $7 million was impacted in the v2.68 Chrome extension incident and that it will refund all affected users. In a statement posted on X, the company said it is finalizing the refund process and will share instructions on next steps “soon.” Trust Wallet also urged users not to interact with messages that do not come from its official channels, warning that scammers may attempt to impersonate the team during the remediation effort. The post Hidden script caught harvesting private keys as Trust Wallet issues emergency warning for Chrome users appeared first on CryptoSlate.

SXP slides 13% while TWT rebounds 10%, as API3, ACA, BIFI, and LAYER all fade from highs in a thin, sniper‑style Binance spot session. Summary SXP dropped 13.02% in 24 hours on Binance spot, with a thin order book amplifying the move.​ TWT rebounded 10.5% from its daily low, with spot buyers defending wallet‑linked exposure.​ API3, ACA, BIFI, and LAYER all spiked then sold off, posting 10–20% losses in a shallow, exit‑liquidity market. When a mid‑cap payments token dumps 13% in a day while a wallet token rips 10% off the mat, something has broken in the usual altcoin rotation rhythm. According to Binance spot market data, Solar’s SXP fell 13.02% over 24 hours, while Trust Wallet Token (TWT) gained 10.5% after staging a clean rebound from its intraday low. Under the surface, the tape looked even stranger: API3, ACA, BIFI, and LAYER all printed the same “high then low” intraday profile, with 24‑hour losses ranging from 10.53% to more than 20%. ​API3, ACA, BIFI, and LAYER all printed “wick up then fade” intraday structures, ending 10–20% off their highs, which is typical exit-liquidity behavior in a market rotating back to majors. Binance spot shows a 24h high around 0.0666 USDT and a low near 0.0608 USDT, so roughly a 9–10% intraday range, which is elevated but not extreme for a small-cap.​ Directionally, SXP is down a few percent over the last 24 hours on major trackers, aligning with a grinding sell‑off rather than a sharp liquidation move.​ The current spot price hovering near 0.064–0.065 USDT places it in the lower half of the day’s range, which signals sellers in control but no capitulation wick yet.​ SXP is selling off in USD terms after a 13% daily dump in thin Binance spot books, which usually translates intounderperformanceversus a strong BTC backdrop. TWT starts tending on the 24h TWT is getting hit by a security scare plus profit-taking: short term sentiment is bearish after a Chrome extension exploit, despite decent fundamentals and new utility plans. Spot is trading around the 0.78–0.80 dollar area on some trackers, down roughly 6% on the day and about 27% over the last month. Over 3 months it is down more than 36%, and about 36% year-on-year, which is a clearbearishmedium-term structure. TWT just bounced over 10% intraday in USD, but remains down sharply on 1‑ and 3‑month horizons, so the spike looks more like a short-covering/mean-reversion move than structural strength. Outlook into New Year’s Eve (relative to BTC) Base case: BTC dominance either holds or grinds higher into New Year’s as macro flows stay focused on Bitcoin ETFs and year-end positioning, keeping SXP, TWT, and the rest of this basket underperforming on BTC pairs.​ Tactical exception: TWT can squeeze higher short term on the back of forecasted 10–15% USD upside into Dec. 31, but unless BTC stalls or corrects, even that move likely only stabilizes, not reverses, its BTC underperformance. ​