Crypto Theft Prevention

Cryptocurrency theft is shifting tactics. While traditional protocol hacks appear to be declining, phishing attacks and social engineering scams are surging as criminals pivot toward exploiting human error rather than software vulnerabilities. February’s crypto theft landscape reveals a troubling pattern: attackers are increasingly targeting individual users through deception rather than pursuing technical exploits against major platforms.

A Sharp Drop Masks a Concerning Shift

February saw approximately $50 million in cryptocurrency losses across the industry, according to security firm Nominis. That represents a notable decrease from January’s $385 million, suggesting the sector is moving in a positive direction.

The context, however, complicates this narrative. During the final quarter of last year, Bybit alone blocked more than $300 million in unauthorized withdrawal attempts—a single exchange’s defensive efforts that dwarf an entire month of actual theft losses. This disparity highlights how much active security infrastructure is working behind the scenes.

The more significant story is where the attacks are coming from, not just the raw loss figures.

— Security researchers analyzing February data

Researchers emphasize that the decline in losses tells only part of the story. The real shift involves the methods criminals are using and whom they are targeting.

Social Engineering Overtakes Technical Exploits

February marked a turning point in attack methodology. Social engineering campaigns—scams that manipulate users into voluntarily compromising their own accounts—caused more cumulative damage than traditional software exploits. Phishing messages climbed sharply throughout the month.

The most prevalent tactic involved authorization abuse. Criminals sent fraudulent communications designed to trick users into granting wallet permissions without understanding the consequences. Once a victim approved these permissions, attackers gained the ability to transfer funds freely.

Private individuals bore the brunt of these attacks, not exchanges or large protocols. This represents a meaningful change in the threat landscape for cryptocurrency participants.

One Incident Dominates The Monthly Picture

A single breach accounted for the majority of February’s losses. Step Finance, a portfolio analytics platform built on Solana, was compromised and lost approximately $30 million. Removing this one event would transform February into an exceptionally quiet month for the industry.

Blockchain security firm PeckShield assessed February losses at $26.5 million—the lowest monthly total since March 2025. This figure underscores how concentrated the damage was.

PeckShield attributed part of this improvement to stronger risk controls and enhanced security practices becoming more widespread across the ecosystem. Yet the reliance on a single major incident to explain the improvement also reveals how fragile current protections remain.

The Broader Reality: Billions Lost Annually

A quieter month should not obscure the industry’s larger security challenge. According to Chainalysis, cryptocurrency hacks cost the industry $3.4 billion in the previous year alone. That staggering figure demonstrates how much work remains before theft can be considered a managed problem.

Bybit’s operational numbers illuminate the scale of active threat mitigation required. During a single quarter, the exchange’s fraud systems flagged approximately 350 high-risk addresses and prevented around 8,000 users from falling victim to potential scams. This represents ordinary, continuous work—not exceptional circumstances.

Criminals are simply redirecting their efforts toward softer targets as technical defenses improve.

— Industry analysis of emerging threat patterns

The trend is clear: while large-scale protocol attacks appear to be easing, the concurrent rise in user-targeted scams suggests criminals are adapting rather than retreating. Better smart contract audits and stronger on-chain monitoring may be closing one vulnerability vector. But as long as people can be deceived into approving unauthorized transactions, another attack surface remains exposed.

Industry Context: The Evolution of Crypto Security Infrastructure

The cryptocurrency industry has matured considerably since its early days of largely unregulated exchanges and minimal security oversight. Major platforms now employ sophisticated fraud detection systems, multi-signature wallet architectures, and real-time transaction monitoring that would be unrecognizable a decade ago. Companies like Bybit, Kraken, and Coinbase have invested hundreds of millions in security infrastructure, regulatory compliance, and insurance mechanisms to protect customer assets.

This maturation explains why large-scale protocol exploits—once the dominant theft vector—have become increasingly difficult. The transition from technical attacks to social engineering represents not a weakness in this infrastructure, but rather a predictable criminal response to strengthened defenses. When traditional hacking becomes harder, resourceful criminals naturally gravitate toward exploiting the weakest link: human psychology.

The broader digital security industry has documented this pattern repeatedly. As cybersecurity defenses strengthen, attackers shift toward phishing, pretexting, and social engineering. The cryptocurrency sector is simply experiencing this phenomenon on an accelerated timeline due to the irreversible nature of blockchain transactions and the high-value targets involved.

Market Implications and Investment Concerns

The shift in attack methodology carries significant implications for cryptocurrency market participants and institutional investors evaluating sector risk. For retail users, the prevalence of social engineering attacks means security responsibility has shifted from purely technical (choosing secure exchanges) to behavioral (recognizing and resisting manipulation).

Institutional investors and platforms are responding by developing new insurance products, custody solutions, and security protocols specifically designed to address social engineering vectors. Some exchanges now require additional verification steps for large withdrawals, while others implement time-delays on permission changes to allow users to revoke fraudulent authorizations before attackers can exploit them.

The fragmentation of security approaches across different platforms creates market inefficiencies and risk asymmetries. Users on platforms with advanced social engineering protections face dramatically lower threat profiles than those on smaller exchanges with minimal verification systems. This divergence is likely to drive continued consolidation, with security capabilities becoming an increasingly important competitive differentiator.

Company Backgrounds: The Security Leaders

Bybit, founded in 2018, has emerged as one of the industry’s leading derivatives exchanges with particular emphasis on security infrastructure. The platform operates with the philosophy that preventing fraud is more valuable than recovering funds after theft occurs. Their quarterly prevention statistics—blocking $300 million in unauthorized attempts—demonstrate the scale of their defensive operations.

Chainalysis, established in 2014, provides blockchain analysis and risk management tools used by government agencies, financial institutions, and exchanges. Their annual threat reports have become industry benchmarks for understanding cryptocurrency theft patterns. Their $3.4 billion annual theft figure incorporates both on-chain analysis and institutional reports, making it the most comprehensive available data point.

PeckShield, a Chinese-founded security firm, specializes in smart contract auditing and blockchain security monitoring. Their monthly loss assessments provide an alternative data source to Chainalysis, and the divergence between their $26.5 million February figure and Nominis’s $50 million estimate highlights ongoing challenges in theft attribution and comprehensive tracking across the decentralized ecosystem.

Recommendations for Users and Platforms

For individual cryptocurrency users, the February data suggests practical defensive measures: enable all available multi-factor authentication, carefully review permission requests before approving them, verify wallet addresses through multiple channels before transferring funds, and maintain healthy skepticism toward unsolicited messages from platforms or community members.

For platforms and security companies, the evidence points toward increased investment in user education, transaction authorization verification systems, and social engineering detection. Some forward-thinking exchanges are exploring behavioral analysis that flags suspicious approval patterns—such as permission grants followed immediately by large transfers to previously unknown addresses.

For cryptocurrency custody providers and insurance companies, the market opportunity for social engineering protection is expanding rapidly. Products that verify identity during permission changes, implement time-delays before large withdrawals, or provide insurance against authorization fraud represent growing segments within the institutional custody market.

Looking Forward: The Arms Race Intensifies

For cryptocurrency participants, this evolution carries practical implications. Technical security advances alone cannot address threats rooted in human psychology and deception. Both individual vigilance and platform-level protections against unauthorized access become increasingly critical as the threat landscape evolves.

The February data suggests the industry is making progress on technical fronts. Whether this progress translates into genuine security improvement depends on how effectively both users and platforms can address the growing threat of social engineering. The coming quarters will reveal whether the shift toward user-targeted attacks represents a temporary criminal adaptation or a permanent reconfiguration of the cryptocurrency threat landscape.

As the industry matures and technical security becomes commoditized, the competitive advantage for exchanges and platforms will increasingly depend on their ability to protect users from social engineering—a challenge that no amount of code audits or technical infrastructure can fully solve. The market leaders will likely be those who combine institutional-grade technical security with sophisticated user protection systems that recognize and prevent deceptive attacks before users are compromised.

As attackers refine their social engineering tactics, watch for exchanges and platforms to invest more heavily in user education and transaction authorization verification. The coming months will indicate whether cryptocurrency security improvements can keep pace with evolving criminal strategies. Additionally, expect regulatory bodies to begin mandating specific anti-fraud protections, particularly around permission management and transaction verification, as they recognize social engineering as an emerging systemic risk to the industry.