February Crypto Losses Fall to Lowest Level Since March 2025

February Crypto Losses Fall to $26.5 Million – Lowest Monthly Total Since March 2025

Key Takeaways

• Crypto hacks and scams caused $26.5 million in losses in February, according to PeckShield.
• This marks the lowest monthly total since March 2025 and a 69.2% decrease from January.
• Two incidents accounted for the majority of February’s losses: a $10 million exploit at YieldBlox and an $8.9 million private key exploit at IoTeX.
• PeckShield links the decline to fewer mega hacks and a market correction that shifted focus toward liquidity and deleveraging.
• Phishing remains a persistent threat despite a sharp drop in wallet drainer related losses in 2025.

February Losses Drop to Lowest Level in Eleven Months

Crypto hacks and scams resulted in $26.5 million in losses in February, according to blockchain security firm PeckShield. The figure represents the lowest monthly total recorded since March 2025.

PeckShield reported that 15 incidents were identified during the month. However, only two cases accounted for the majority of total losses. Compared with January, when losses exceeded $86 million, February’s total marks a 69.2% month on month decrease.

For users of crypto platforms, including exchanges, lending protocols and crypto enabled gambling services, the scale of exploit related losses is a key risk indicator. Lower aggregate losses do not eliminate operational risk, but they reflect a reduced financial impact from security incidents over the reporting period.

Two Major Exploits Account for Most of the Damage

The largest single incident in February was a $10 million theft from YieldBlox’s DAO managed lending pool. According to PeckShield, the attack involved price manipulation and occurred on Feb. 21.

On the same day, the decentralized identity protocol IoTeX suffered the second largest exploit of the month. Approximately $8.9 million was lost in what PeckShield described as a private key exploit.

Together, these two incidents accounted for the majority of the $26.5 million total. The remaining 13 incidents were comparatively smaller in scale. The concentration of losses in a limited number of cases contrasts with months that include so called mega hacks, where a single large scale breach significantly inflates total losses.

Fewer Mega Hacks and Market Volatility Influenced the Decline

A spokesperson for PeckShield told Cointelegraph that February did not see mega hacks comparable to the $1.5 billion Bybit hack that occurred in February 2025. The absence of such large scale events contributed to the lower overall figure.

PeckShield also linked the decline to broader market conditions. A sharp market correction in early February saw Bitcoin dip below $70,000. According to the firm, this shift redirected industry focus toward institutional deleveraging and mathematically driven sell offs.

During periods of heightened volatility, attention often moves away from exploiting protocol vulnerabilities and toward managing liquidity risks. In this environment, exploit activity can temporarily cool as market participants prioritize capital preservation and risk management.

For crypto users, including those funding betting accounts or holding balances on platforms, market volatility can therefore influence not only asset prices but also the operational threat landscape.

Security Controls and Monitoring Frameworks Show Signs of Maturation

Dominick John, an analyst at Kronos Research, told Cointelegraph that tighter risk controls and stronger counterparty standards may also have contributed to the decline in losses.

According to John, capital is becoming more selective, favoring protocols with more mature security frameworks. He pointed to improvements in audits, real time monitoring and institutional risk frameworks as factors that could support a continued reduction in losses if standards keep pace with ongoing innovation.

John also noted that artificial intelligence may play an increasing role in crypto security. AI driven tools can support automated code reviews, anomaly detection and pre deployment attack simulations. These measures aim to identify vulnerabilities earlier in a protocol’s lifecycle.

While these developments indicate structural improvements in how risks are managed, the ecosystem remains fast moving, and security requirements continue to evolve alongside new products and technical features.

Phishing Remains a Persistent Threat Despite Lower Wallet Drainer Losses

Although overall hack related losses declined in February, phishing continues to present a significant risk. PeckShield reported that losses tied to wallet drainer attacks dropped sharply in 2025, from $494 million to $83.85 million.

Even with that reduction, the firm described phishing as the most persistent threat vector. Rather than targeting smart contract code, attackers increasingly focus on manipulating individuals to gain access to sensitive information, including private keys and wallet credentials.

PeckShield emphasized the importance of multi signature cold storage solutions and strict protection of wallets and private keys, particularly for institutions and large holders. For individual users, including those interacting with crypto betting and gaming platforms, phishing risks often arise through impersonation attempts and fraudulent communications.

Our Assessment

PeckShield’s data shows that February’s $26.5 million in crypto related losses marks the lowest monthly level since March 2025 and a substantial decrease from January. The absence of mega hacks, combined with a period of market correction and volatility, coincided with reduced aggregate losses. At the same time, two incidents accounted for most of the damage, and phishing remains a persistent method of attack. The figures indicate a month of comparatively lower financial impact from exploits, while structural security challenges continue to shape the risk environment for crypto users and platforms.