CoinDCX $44M Hack: Big PR Game Vs. Bigger Questions

When the Spin Machine Backfires

The July 2025 $44 million hack of CoinDCX didn’t just compromise an internal wallet—it exposed a deeper rot in Indian crypto’s public relations ecosystem. CoinDCX, once heralded as “India’s safest exchange,” now finds itself scrambling to maintain appearances rather than provide answers. The company’s response to the breach has revealed not just a security lapse, but a credibility crisis years in the making.

For those watching closely, this wasn’t just a hack. It was poetic justice.

1. When WazirX Was Under Fire, CoinDCX Lit the Match

 On July 18, 2024, WazirX faced one of the largest hacks in Indian crypto history—over $230 million in assets compromised. The team responded within hours, posting a temporary suspension notice, followed by daily updates, legal filings, and finally a court-supervised restructuring plan.

What did CoinDCX do? Instead of showing industry solidarity or learning from the crisis, it capitalized on the moment.

• Influencers affiliated with CoinDCX flooded social media with attacks on WazirX’s credibility.
• PR channels pushed the narrative that WazirX had “failed” users—despite it being the only Indian exchange to file court affidavits and pursue restitution.
• CoinDCX  used the moment to brand itself as more “regulated,” “trustworthy,” and “safe.” 

But behind the curtain, there was no proof of any of those claims. No public audit. No transparency. Just optics.

2. July 2025: CoinDCX Is Hacked, and the Script Flips

On July 19, 2025, blockchain analysts at Cyvers and @zachxbt noticed a suspicious outflow of funds from CoinDCX wallets—approximately $44.2 million. The response?

• 17 hours of silence before CoinDCX even acknowledged the breach publicly.
• A vague one-paragraph statement claiming “user funds are safe,” with no proof.
• A CoinGabbar wallet screenshot presented as a “transparency update”—with no Merkle Tree, no liabilities disclosed, and no third-party audit.

Despite the glaring red flags, many of the same influencers who attacked WazirX were now applauding CoinDCX. Posts praising CoinDCX’s “calm handling” and “transparency” were trending within 24 hours.

Where were the questions about wallet segregation? About legal ownership of user assets? About a security audit?

Nowhere. Because the priority wasn’t accountability. It was narrative control.

3. From Audit Trails to PR Trails: The CoinDCX Way

Let’s compare the two incidents—not by tone or marketing, but by facts.

The contrast is telling. One exchange leaned into regulation, law, and disclosure. The other leaned into branding and managed perception.

4. CoinDCX’s PR Overdrive: Slick, but Hollow

Within hours of the hack acknowledgment, CoinDCX launched what can only be described as a pre-packaged PR campaign. The components were all too familiar:

• A “crypto bug bounty” announcement, positioning the hack as a call to strengthen the ecosystem.
• Influencer threads praising the exchange’s “maturity.”
• Thought leadership articles on “resilience” posted to LinkedIn by team members.

None of this addressed the central questions:

• Were user funds legally segregated?
• Is there an independent audit underway?
• What are CoinDCX’s total liabilities across all coins?

When users asked, they were met with silence or told to “trust the team.” That’s not security—that’s gaslighting.

5. Influencer Hypocrisy: Then vs. Now

Perhaps the most galling aspect of this saga is the role of crypto influencers.

In 2024, these same voices were quick to label WazirX as “negligent,” “incompetent,” or worse. They demanded full transparency, audits, and user restitution.

In 2025, when CoinDCX was hacked?

• Many of them posted screenshots of CoinGabbar wallets as “proof.”
• They repeated CoinDCX’s marketing slogans verbatim: “All user funds are safe,” “We’re the most trusted,” “Bug bounty FTW.”
• Criticism was muted, deflected, or deleted entirely.

It’s not that they suddenly became more understanding. It’s that they were never neutral to begin with.

6. WazirX vs. CoinDCX: Two Paths After Crisis

WazirX’s approach was slow, painful, and public. But it was real.

• They filed legal restructuring papers.
• Published liabilities and reserves.
• Built a Merkle Tree for user verification.
• Worked with courts and regulators in Singapore and India.

CoinDCX has done none of that. Their approach has been to manage headlines—not risks.

What’s more dangerous: a company that admits it needs court oversight? Or one that refuses transparency but claims it’s fine?

7. Reputation: Earned or Engineered?

 CoinDCX’s brand image was built on slick design, savvy influencers, and deep PR ties. But that can’t protect users.

When the time came to show real security practices—like legal fund segregation, audit trails, or liability disclosures—CoinDCX had nothing. Just vibes.

In the end, reputation is a lagging indicator. You don’t have it because you say you do. You have it because you’ve proven it—through audits, accountability, and transparency.

Trust Demands More Than a Press Release

The CoinDCX hack is bigger than a security incident. It’s a mirror held up to the Indian crypto ecosystem, exposing:

• How narratives are manufactured
• How influencers are mobilized
• How facts are buried under vibes

It’s time to raise the bar. Users must demand more than hashtags and hope. Demand audits. Demand legal documentation. Demand facts.

Because in crypto, you don’t get the trust you buy—you get the trust you earn.