COLDCARD RNG incident the public record, collected and explained
Informational only, and this site never asks for your seed words. details

Informational only. This is an open source collection of what others have published about the incident, together with an explanation of it. It is not financial, security or legal advice, and not a substitute for professional advice about your own situation. It is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or speaking for Coinkite. Material is attributed and quoted as published; where sources disagree their scenarios are kept separate with their assumptions rather than reconciled into one answer. Everything is meant to be checked against the linked evidence rather than taken on trust. Act on your own judgement about a particular situation. Editorial standards and corrections.

Do not disclose recovery material to a website, form, message or support account. This site never asks for it, and contributions containing recovery words or private keys are not accepted.

Coinkite faces class action threat as bitcoin wallet bug costs users over 1,300 BTC

newsbitcom-class-action-threat

https://news.bitcoin.com/regulation-and-legal/coinkite-faces-class-action-threat-as-bitcoin-wallet-bug-costs-users-over-1300-btc/

Organisation
Bitcoin.com News
Evidence role
Reporting
Published
2026-08-02
Source changes
0
Detected differences
29
Unreviewed
0
Copies held
30

The one held source that collects named legal opinion on Coinkite's exposure from both directions: Cris Carrascosa (ATH21) saying the company has no regulatory responsibility for user funds and that foreseeability would be hard to prove, Ana Ojeda (Blend) saying there is a credible basis to investigate responsibility while no victim has an automatic right to recovery, alongside Thomas Braziel's stated intent and a Brazilian claimant's police report. Held for the legal-context page, which registers what parties say about liability and does not choose between them. Every opinion in it is the speaker's, is about a claim nobody had filed at the check date, and none of it is advice to a reader here.

Every check is recorded, including checks that found no text change. A detected edit is therefore bounded between two checks. The publisher's exact save time is not observable from this record. Last checked .

  1. Earliest copy held
    seen · Captured here 7,126 chars
    Extracted text as captured 
    Read In App
EN
Launch App
Home
News
Market UpdatesFinanceLearning InsightsRegulation & LegalMiningBlockchainCrypto News
LearnResearchNewsletters
Advertise
Advertise With UsSubmit Press ReleasePodcast Interview
EN
Launch App
Home
Finance
Learn
Research
Newsletters
Advertise
Powered by
Regulation & LegalPublished:Aug 2, 2026, 4:30 PM
Coinkite Faces Class Action Threat as Bitcoin Wallet Bug Costs Users Over 1,300 BTC
Coinkite, the company behind Coldcard, the hardware wallet affected by a vulnerability in its seed generation code, might face legal action from victims who have lost over $88 million in BTC over the last two days.
WRITTEN BY
Sergio Goschenko
SHARE
Published: Aug 2, 2026, 4:30 PM
Key Takeaways
Victims are planning class-action lawsuits against Coinkite after losing $88 million to the Coldcard wallet bug.
Legal experts are sharply divided on Coinkite’s liability, complicating victims’ prospects for recovering funds.
These potential product liability cases could establish major legal precedents for crypto hardware wallet makers.
Users Prepare To Exert Legal Action Against Coinkite Over Coldcard Vulnerability
Coinkite, the company behind the Coldcard series of hardware wallets, might face legal action from users who have collectively lost over 1,300 BTC linked to the vulnerability in the seed phrase generator used by some of its models.
Thomas Braziel, founder and managing partner of 117 Partners, is studying how to act against the company, mentioning targeting product liability claims and even pursuing a class action lawsuit against the manufacturer.
Braziel is currently coordinating and gathering information from victims internationally before embarking on these actions.
He is not the only one planning to go after Coinkite. Felipe Ojeda, a bitcoin advocate in Brazil who lost almost all of his capital, has already filed a police report and will introduce a complaint against the company in Brazil.
Nonetheless, he is not hopeful about the future of such actions, as he acknowledges that the company does not have the financial muscle to make everyone affected whole, even as it was one of the most trusted in the field of self-custody.
“What is the valuation of this company? It received two rounds of investment there in 2013; it has no sales volume, despite being the largest in this matter of self-custody; in the real world outside of bitcoin, it represented nothing, a tiny company,” he told Livecoins.
Opinions are divided on whether Coinkite might be held liable for these losses. Cris Carrascosa, CEO of ATH21, a legal firm, stressed that Coinkite had “zero regulatory responsibility over the funds of the users of its products,” explaining that she was pessimistic about the outcome of any legal action against the company.
“Those lawsuits are going to be terribly difficult to push through because it will have to be proven that Cold Card could have foreseen the hack,” she assessed.
Even so, Ana Ojeda, Head of Institutional BD at Blend, claims there could still be a chance for Coinkite to be held liable, at least in some capacity. While she acknowledges that “there is no automatic right for victims to get every sat back,” there is “a credible legal basis to investigate responsibility” as there are serious arguments for defect and negligence in Coinkite’s actions.
The outcome of hypothetical legal actions against Coinkite can set a precedent for similar cases happening in the future. At the time of writing, over $88 million in bitcoin had been stolen from Coldcard wallets affected by the random seed generation vulnerability, and experts expect figures to keep growing.

    Excerpt only. The complete copy is held offline and backs quotations on this site. The original publication remains the canonical public source.

29 presentation-noise differences. Sidebar, ticker and other page chrome churn that our review classified as not being changes to what the source says.
  • +35 -35 Only rotating LATEST NEWS, MOST POPULAR and Related articles modules and their relative timestamps changed; the article text was unchanged.
  • +31 -31 Only rotating latest-news and most-popular rails and their relative-time labels changed; the article text was unchanged.
  • +30 -30 Only rotating 'LATEST NEWS', 'MOST POPULAR' and related-article modules and their relative timestamps changed; the legal-context article text was unchanged.
  • +26 -26 Only rotating 'LATEST NEWS', 'MOST POPULAR' and 'Related articles' modules and one relative-time label changed; the article body was unchanged.
  • +22 -22 Only the rotating news feed items and their relative timestamps changed; the article text was unchanged.
  • +23 -23 Only the rotating news feed items and their relative timestamps changed; the article text was unchanged.
  • +24 -24 Only rotating related-news headlines and their relative timestamps changed; the article body was unchanged.
  • +27 -27 Only the rotating latest-news and most-popular modules and their relative-time labels changed; the article text was unchanged.
  • +22 -22 Only the rotating latest-news and most-popular side modules and their relative-time labels changed; the legal-context article text was unchanged.
  • +25 -25 Only the rotating MOST POPULAR module and related-story ages below the article changed; the article text was unchanged.
  • +27 -27 Only the rotating LATEST NEWS sidebar and its relative timestamps changed; the article text was unchanged.
  • +28 -28 Only rotating related-story headlines and their timestamps changed; the article text was unchanged.
  • +24 -24 Only rotating LATEST NEWS and MOST POPULAR sidebar headlines and their timestamps changed; the article body was unchanged.
  • +24 -24 Only the rotating latest-news headlines and their relative timestamps changed; the article text was unchanged.
  • +25 -25 Only the surrounding latest-news, most-popular, and related-articles rails and their timestamps changed; the article text was unchanged.
  • +33 -33 Only rotating latest-news and most-popular modules and their relative-time labels changed.
  • +28 -28 Only the duplicated LATEST NEWS sidebar and Most Popular rails, together with their relative timestamps, changed; the class-action article text was unchanged.
  • +21 -21 Only the rotating LATEST NEWS sidebar headlines and their relative timestamps changed; the article text was unchanged.
  • +21 -21 Only the latest-news rails and their relative timestamps changed. The article body carrying the claimant-organising quotes is unchanged.
  • +24 -24 Only the site's latest-news and most-popular rails and their relative timestamps changed. The article body carrying the claimant-organising quotes is unchanged.
  • +30 -30 Sidebar churn only: the Latest News, Most Popular and Latest Podcasts modules rotated to newer items and relative timestamps rolled over. The class-action article itself is unchanged.
  • +20 -20 LATEST NEWS sidebar rotated (new lead headline is incident-related: "Coldcard Hacker Resumes Moving Stolen 30 BTC to New Wallet") and timestamps ticked over; the article body itself is unchanged.
  • +20 -20 LATEST NEWS and MOST POPULAR sidebar headlines rotated and relative timestamps ticked over; the article itself is unchanged.
  • +29 -29 LATEST NEWS and MOST POPULAR sidebar headlines rotated and relative timestamps ticked over; the article itself is unchanged.
  • +29 -29 LATEST NEWS and MOST POPULAR sidebar modules rotated headlines and relative timestamps ticked over; the article itself is unchanged.
  • +28 -28 Only rotating most-popular and latest-news rails, together with their relative-time labels, changed; the legal-context article text was unchanged.
  • +34 -34 The page refreshed its latest-news and popular-story widgets, including relative timestamps. The legal reporting did not change.
  • +30 -30 Only the page's duplicated Latest News feed and relative publication times changed. The class-action article and its attributed legal opinions did not change.
  • +32 -32 Only rotating Latest News and Most Popular cards, their timestamps and related links changed. The legal-context article text did not change.
How to check this yourself

The excerpts and plain unified diffs above show the text this project held and how it changed. To verify a quotation, compare it against the page itself or against the Internet Archive's copies, which are independent of this project.

Complete captures are held offline rather than mirrored here, so this page shows diffs and excerpts. If a quotation is ever disputed, the full copy can be produced. Ask.