hack or exploit

BloomTrading bot users lose nearly $1M as wallets get drained

0Importance
closedStatus
6News media
9Pieces
Published
Updated
Since then
8 new reports
In
Solana

BloomTrading’s Telegram-based trading bot faced a wallet-drain incident tied to Solana balances on October 26, with later updates putting the loss at about 9,408 SOL and pointing to a third-party module issue. The company said it would reimburse affected users, while separate coverage described the drain as affecting multiple wallets and moving quickly across the bot’s user base.

Key claims & sources

✓
Crypto Briefing said the incident drained nearly $1 million from BloomTrading bot users' wallets.
✓
BloomTrading said it is investigating a wallet-drain incident affecting its Telegram-based trading bot after reports that roughly $1 million was taken from user wallets.
✓
BloomTrading said affected users will be reimbursed and said there will be no need for a relief fund.
✓
Bloom Trading linked the October 26 incident to a remote code execution flaw in a third-party software module and said about 9,408 SOL, or roughly $947,000, was taken from nine users' wallets.
✓
Bitquery traced 9,408 SOL, about $953,000, from 48 Bloom-linked wallets belonging to nine traders and said the full drain sequence was completed in 94 seconds.
✓
Bitquery said each transfer was signed by the source wallet's own key and did not determine how that access was obtained.
✓
Daily Hodl said the attack affected 49 wallet addresses belonging to nine users and that Bloom said the attacker exploited a third-party module through a remote code execution vulnerability.
✓
Cointelegraph said Bloom pledged to reimburse nine traders after $953,000 was drained from 48 wallets and said no private keys were accessed or compromised.

What it means

Telegram-based trading bots like Bloom sit in a lineage of custodial automation tools built for Solana and Ethereum sniping, following earlier bots such as Unibot and Banana Gun that also pooled user funds behind a single key-management layer. These bots trade convenience for custody: users fund a bot-controlled wallet rather than signing each transaction themselves, a model that has drawn scrutiny since at least 2023 when similar Telegram bots suffered their own exploits. (per cryptobriefing.com)

Nine Bloom users across 48 to 49 wallets now wait on a pledged reimbursement of roughly 9,408 SOL, with the company ruling out a community relief fund and instead committing to cover losses directly. Traders using the bot face a practical choice: keep funds parked in a custodial automation layer for speed, or withdraw to self-custody and lose the one-click execution Bloom was built for. Other Telegram bot operators now face pressure to audit third-party modules before the next exploit finds them first.

Bitquery confirmed every drained transfer carried a valid signature from the source wallet's own key, yet could not establish how the attacker obtained that signing access, a gap that undercuts Bloom's claim that no private keys were compromised. Calling a 94-second, 48-wallet sweep anything other than a key compromise is a stretch, and the episode revives a familiar tension: bots marketed for speed and convenience still ask users to trust one company's custody of the keys that move their money.

Bitquery's investigation left open exactly how attacker access to signing keys was obtained, and that unanswered question is what will determine whether this was a one-off supply-chain failure or a repeatable attack path for other Telegram bots. Watch whether Bloom names the compromised third-party module publicly and whether the nine affected traders receive the promised 9,408 SOL in full, since a completed reimbursement would close the case while a partial one would reopen it.

Market reaction i

Total crypto marketall crypto assets combined no single asset in the event: read against the whole market
first headline
+0.5% 2 h before
+0.6% 4 h after
$2.7Tmarket cap at publication
12data points

Coverage timeline

Every piece in order, with the time its news medium declares — if it is not believable we use ours and say so — and what it added to what was already known at that point. Arriving first is not the same as adding something.

first
Oct 26 04:45
Crypto Briefing scoop
Breaks the event: $1M
+1 h 28 m
Oct 26 06:14
crypto.news context
Its angle: suspected, promises, victims
+7 h 23 m
Oct 26 12:08
The Cryptocurrency Post context
Its angle: acknowledged, reimbursing, individual; with quotes
+8 h 40 m
Oct 26 13:26
+9 h 31 m
Oct 26 14:17
The Crypto Guardian adds
Brings into the story: RCE, with quotes
+11 h 35 m
Oct 26 16:20
Crypto Economy context
Its angle: cryptographic, concentrated, highlighting
+14 h 48 m
Oct 26 19:33
The Daily Hodl echo
No new facts: controlled, analytics, stopped; with quotes
+1 d 4 h
Oct 27 09:07
Cointelegraph echo
No new facts: microwave, hackers, popcorn
+2 d 4 h
Oct 28 09:40
DefiLlama hacks echo our clock
No new facts: technique, exploit

Thefts of a similar size

WhenWhat happenedFigure
3 months ago Oraichain · Unbacked Cross-Chain Mint incident $1M
11 months ago USPD incident $1M
1.0 years ago Moonwell · Faulty oracle incident $1M
1.9 years ago FEG · Security vulnerability incident $1M
2.0 years ago CompoundFork · Flashloan attack incident $1M

4280 incidents stored · 953 were as large as this one or larger ($1M)