Circle let over $440 million in stolen USDC move freely, ZachXBT says

Crypto researcher and analyst ZachXBT has alleged that Circle, the US-regulated issuer of the stablecoin USDC, failed to act effectively on multiple high-profile thefts, resulting in more than $440 million in losses since 2022.

In a detailed thread published Friday, ZachXBT cited numerous incidents in which hackers exploited decentralized finance protocols, moving USDC through Circle’s infrastructure without intervention.

1/ Welcome to the Circle $USDC files.

$420M+ in alleged compliance failures since 2022, including fifteen cases of the US-regulated stablecoin issuer taking minimal action against illicit funds. pic.twitter.com/OiWZz5MrVM

— ZachXBT (@zachxbt) April 3, 2026

According to the analyst, funds often sit in wallets for hours, or even days, without being frozen, despite requests from law enforcement and private sector experts.

Among the cases highlighted was the April 1, 2026, exploit of Drift Protocol, in which over $280 million in USDC was bridged from Solana to Ethereum across more than 100 transactions over six hours.

ZachXBT claimed that despite clear opportunities to intervene, Circle did not freeze the funds.

Other incidents included exploits targeting SwapNet, Cetus Protocol, Mango Markets, and GMX, with alleged delays in action ranging from hours to months.

Circle, incorporated in the US and headquartered in New York City, operates USDC as a centralized stablecoin pegged 1:1 to the US dollar. Its smart contracts include freeze and blacklist functions, and the company’s terms of service reserve the right to restrict access to suspected illicit actors at its discretion.

ZachXBT compared Circle’s actions with other stablecoin issuers, including Tether, noting that competitors frequently freeze funds within hours of detection.

Circle has not publicly commented on the allegations. The company has historically emphasized its commitment to compliance and regulatory oversight, including cooperation with law enforcement.

The allegations raise questions about the effectiveness of centralized stablecoin governance in preventing illicit activity, in particular, when a rapid response is required to mitigate losses.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Estefano Gomez. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.