‘Great Hackers, Terrible Traders’: How Exploiters Panic Sold and Lost $13M During Market Chaos
Following the sharp crypto sell-off on October 10–11, on-chain analysis revealed that hackers suffered a loss of around $13.4 million while trading Ethereum. Data from Lookonchain showed that these exploiters sold large amounts of ETH near the market bottom, only to repurchase it at higher prices as conditions quickly rebounded.
The incident, widely covered by major crypto media, underscores how even experienced hackers can falter in volatile markets. Their missteps highlight the risks of reacting to panic-driven price swings without accounting for rapid market reversals—an irony for actors usually skilled at exploiting blockchain inefficiencies.
What happened and why it matters
Lookonchain traced a cluster of wallets labeled as hacker-linked that sold 8,638 ETH around $3,764 during the steepest drawdown, then repurchased 7,816 ETH near $4,159 after a rebound an approach that locked in realized losses estimated around $13.4 million across the group. The trades occurred as liquidity thinned and leverage unwound across crypto. X (formerly Twitter)+2The Block+2
Broader market backdrop
The missteps came during the Oct. 10–11 crash described by multiple outlets as a record liquidation event—when bitcoin and ether fell sharply on macro headlines and risk deleveraging. That context likely amplified poor decision-making by the wallets.
On-chain trail: timings, sizes, and labels
Sells: ~8,638 ETH at about $3,764 (~$32.5M).
Buys: ~7,816 ETH at about $4,159 (~$32.5M).
Net effect
Multi-million realized losses; aggregated coverage pegs the figure near $13.4M across six wallets.
Lookonchain’s X posts include links to address pages and use the term “panic-sold” for the behavior. Media round-ups by The Block and CoinDesk reference the same figures and sequence.
Possible motives: bad trading vs. laundering
Analysts floated two non-exclusive explanations: (1) poor trade timing under stress, or (2) wash-like flows to launder tainted ETH by selling into panic and rebuying “clean” coins later, accepting losses as a cost. There’s no definitive attribution; reporting relies on address labels and transaction paths, not identities.
Risk lessons for on-chain actors
Labels aren’t immunity
Being adept at exploits doesn’t confer market-timing skill.
Liquidity holes hurt
Large spot orders in thin books move price against the trader.
Post-exploit management matters
Holding, hedging, or OTC off-ramps can change outcomes.
Using the data: hackers lost $13.4 million trading ETH case study
This incident illustrates how transparent ledgers allow real-time auditing of high-impact trades, enabling media and analysts to triangulate losses from public transaction history and price prints.
Traceability and the “hackers lost $13.4 million trading ETH” headline
Because ETH transfers and DEX swaps are public, third-party observers can reconstruct flows and estimate P&L from timestamped trades versus contemporaneous prices subject to labeling accuracy.
Context & Analysis
The wallets’ pattern selling into the trough and rebuying on the bounce is consistent with panic behavior seen in over-levered retail cohorts. If laundering was a goal, the losses could be a trade-off for perceived “cleaner” provenance, but on-chain heuristics can still cluster identities, limiting that benefit. Macro-driven volatility (tariff shock, record liquidations) likely exacerbated slippage and FOMO re-entries. 
Conclusion
The Oct. 10–11 event revealed a striking irony in crypto markets technical skill in hacking doesn’t guarantee trading success. Despite their ability to exploit vulnerabilities, the hackers misjudged market momentum, selling ETH too early and buying back at higher levels.
This episode highlights how transparency in blockchain leaves little room for error. Every move is traceable, and when timing misfires, the consequences can be massive. In this case, the exploiters’ misstep cost them nearly eight figures, proving that even the most skilled on-chain actors aren’t immune to emotional or poorly timed trading decisions.
FAQs
Q : What evidence supports the claim that the wallets were hacker-linked?
A : Labeling from analytics platforms (e.g., Arkham and Lookonchain) clusters these addresses with prior exploit-related activity, linking them to known hacker wallets.
Q : How did the wallets lose money?
A : They sold approximately 8,638 ETH near market lows and later rebought around 7,816 ETH at higher prices, realizing a multi-million-dollar loss.
Q : Did all six wallets act together?
A : The trades occurred across multiple labeled wallets in close proximity during the crash, though explicit coordination among them isn’t confirmed.
Q : Could this have been money laundering?
A : Possibly. Dumping tainted ETH and rebuying clean tokens could serve as a laundering tactic, though blockchain traceability limits its effectiveness.
Q : What triggered the market turmoil?
A : Macro shocks and record liquidations on October 10–11 caused sharp, temporary dislocations across crypto markets.
Q : Where did the $13.4M figure come from?
A : The estimate is based on aggregated reporting that sums realized losses across six tracked wallets during the period.
Q : Does the headline “hackers lost $13.4 million trading ETH” reflect final losses?
A : Not necessarily. It reflects current realized losses from observed trades; future price movements could alter their unrealized profit or loss.
Facts
Event
Hacker-tagged wallets sold ETH during the Oct. 10–11 crash and rebought higher, locking in lossesDate/Time
2025-10-18T22:38:00+05:00Entities
Lookonchain (on-chain analytics); The Block (reporting); CoinDesk (reporting)Figures
~8,638 ETH sold @ ~$3,764; ~7,816 ETH bought @ ~$4,159; losses aggregated ≈ $13.4MQuotes
“hackers panic-sold $ETH after the market crash” — Lookonchain, X post. X (formerly Twitter)Sources
The Block (summary) The Block; CoinDesk (feature) CoinDesk