
Bitcoin holds below $81,000 with Trump-Xi talks on the horizon
Bitcoin remains stable at $80,900 as Trump prepares for talks with Xi Jinping.

Circle is facing a class action lawsuit over its failure to freeze $230 million in stolen funds from the Drift Protocol hack. The lawsuit claims Circle allowed attackers to transfer the stolen USDC without intervention.
Mentioned in this story
Circle Internet Group is facing a class action lawsuit led by a Drift Protocol investor claiming it failed to freeze funds stolen in a $280 million exploit of the protocol on April 1.
The lawsuit was filed by Drift investor Joshua McCollum on behalf of over 100 members in a US district court in Massachusetts on Wednesday, which accused Circle of allowing the attackers to transfer about $230 million worth of USDC (USDC) from Solana to Ethereum via Circle’s Cross-Chain Transfer Protocol (CCTP) over several hours without intervention.
“Circle permitted this criminal use of its technology and services,” attorneys representing McCollum wrote, adding: “These losses would not have occurred, or would have been substantially reduced, had Circle taken timely action.”
The suit accuses Circle of aiding and abetting conversion as well as negligence. Mira Gibb, the law firm representing McCollum and other Drift investors, is seeking damages, with the final amount to be determined at trial.
The case touches on a legal grey area around crypto companies that retain control over user funds. While such companies may have the technical ability to intervene or freeze assets, they often cite regulatory constraints or the lack of immediate legal authority as reasons for inaction — leaving accountability unclear as exploits unfold in real-time.

Source: James Seyffart
McCollum’s lawyers pointed out that Circle froze 16 USDC wallets in connection with a sealed US civil case about a week before the Drift incident to argue that Circle had the technical capacity to do the same.
Cointelegraph reached out to Circle for comment, but didn’t receive an immediate response.
Crypto analytics firm Elliptic suspected the exploit was committed by North Korean state-backed hackers, who made over 100 transactions via Circle’s bridging technology during US working hours, where the is based.
The lawsuit alleges that Circle failed to freeze $230 million in stolen funds during the Drift Protocol hack, allowing attackers to transfer the funds without intervention.
The lawsuit was filed by Drift investor Joshua McCollum on behalf of over 100 members, claiming Circle's negligence contributed to the losses from the hack.
Circle may face significant damages if the lawsuit succeeds, as it raises questions about the accountability of crypto companies in managing user funds during exploits.

Bitcoin remains stable at $80,900 as Trump prepares for talks with Xi Jinping.

Bitcoin's rally is at risk as it faces crucial resistance at $82,500.

Ripple (XRP) sees record wallet growth despite market fears.

BASIS.pro is now live! Discover the new crypto arbitrage platform.

Charles Hoskinson decries removal of Section 604 as a threat to open-source development.

Bitcoin battles key resistance levels at $82,000–$82,500 as it seeks a breakout.
See every story in Crypto — including breaking news and analysis.
The funds were converted into Ether (ETH) and sent through the Tornado Cash privacy protocol to launder the proceeds and obscure the trail.
While Circle faced backlash for the inaction, ARK Invest’s director of research for digital assets, Lorenzo Valente, argued on Thursday that it made the right decision, arguing that freezing funds without a legal order opens the door for arbitrary discretion.
“Every future freeze is now a judgment call. Every non-freeze is a political statement. Why freeze the Drift hacker but not that sketchy Nigerian fraud wallet? Why this protester but not that one?”
While Valente sided with Circle’s decision, he speculated that the stolen funds will likely fund North Korea’s nuclear weapons program:
“Whether Circle got it right comes down to how much you weigh rule-of-law principles vs concrete harm. Reasonable people disagree.”