A version is rapidly gaining traction in the crypto community that the attack on Binance was organized not by hackers from North Korea, but by insiders at the exchange itself. Supporters of this hypothesis are convinced that references to the DPRK are needed by the platform only to divert attention and prevent a deeper investigation.
One of the most prominent adherents of this theory was crypto investor Satoxis, who directly suspected the involvement of employees. A lively discussion unfolded under his post, during which many users stated that they had sensed something was wrong from the very first reports of the incident.
The insider breach theory
Some commentators described what happened as a "soft rug pull" — a scenario in which the team itself withdraws funds, disguising it as a hack. Others drew attention to the fact that convincing evidence of the DPRK's involvement had never been presented, and North Korea itself had not claimed responsibility for the attack.
The version of a "complex multi-stage attack" also remained. One user recalled that everything boils down to phishing against a DevOps employee. This specialist had access to a system through which $6 billion could be sent to any addresses — even outside the whitelist. Against this backdrop, talk about AI, protocols, and North Korea looks, in his words, unconvincing.
Some saw a political subtext in the story. One participant compared the accusations against the DPRK to the well-known story about chemical weapons in Iraq. Another noted that China used to be blamed for everything, but the Chinese side has begun to refute such claims.
Not everyone agreed with the author. In the thread, users recalled that the FBI officially named North Korea as the culprit. Binance itself, in its first investigation report, described a multi-stage attack involving social engineering and device compromise, apologized to customers, and admitted fault. The exchange's CEO, Richard Teng, in turn, believes that new crypto market features increase risks.
Cryptalist analysis: The dispute over the attribution of the hack reflects a broader crisis of trust in official accounts of incidents in the crypto industry. Until transparent technical evidence is presented, the community will lean toward insider and conspiratorial interpretations. For Binance, this is a signal: reputational risks after an attack are no less significant than the financial losses themselves.