How Korean Bitcoiners Survived Coldcard—and the Issues It Revealed for the Rest of Us
PANews Big Pliers
Overview
The security incident involving the Coldcard hardware wallet last weekend sent shockwaves throughout the Bitcoin industry, with repercussions still ongoing. English-speaking communities suffered heavy losses, while the Korean Bitcoin community—with a large number of Coldcard users—suffered nearly zero losses. Is this a difference in technical expertise, or something deeper and more structural?
Japanese Bitcoin practitioner Koji Higashi provides a deep analysis of the English-speaking community’s overreliance on Bitcoin influencers, lack of neutrality, and echo chamber effect, by comparing how two communities responded. He calls for extending the principle of “Don’t Trust, Verify” from code to information filtering.
This article is not only a post-incident review but also an important reflection on the health of the Bitcoin community ecosystem.
Translate the entire text as follows:
Last weekend's Coldcard incident sent shockwaves through the entire Bitcoin industry, and the situation has not yet fully settled.
Although I was fortunately not directly affected, I was emotionally deeply moved by the damage it caused and its potential negative impact on Bitcoin’s future.
Amid all of this, I heard some interesting things from the Korean Bitcoin community about how they handled the Coldcard incident, and I think it’s worth sharing (thanks to @atomic for the information).
In short, despite having many Coldcard users, South Korea has reported not a single case of direct Bitcoin loss. They handled the situation exceptionally well.
In contrast, a notable feature of this incident is that many of the victims came from English-speaking communities—individuals who actually have a high level of proficiency in Bitcoin self-custody.
So, why was the Korean Bitcoin community able to safely navigate this crisis?
I believe this is not just a matter of technical proficiency or understanding of Bitcoin. It points to a growing issue in the Bitcoin space for some time now: the lack of neutrality and overreliance on influencers.
Using this successful case in Korea as an example, I want to highlight some structural issues I’ve specifically observed in the English-speaking Bitcoin community.
The Korean Bitcoin community's obsession with "air-gapped self-custody"
As those in the know are aware, the Korean Bitcoin community has an exceptional enthusiasm for self-custody and hardware wallets—particularly those with air-gapped functionality, meaning wallets that are not connected to the internet or wireless communications.
For this reason, as one of the first products to offer an air-gapped feature, Coldcard has been very popular among experienced Bitcoin users in South Korea, indicating a substantial local user base prior to the incident.
Hearing this, you might assume that many Korean users suffered direct losses in the Coldcard incident. But in reality, according to local insiders, almost no Korean users were affected.
Why?
Originally, leaders and influencers in the Korean community have been strongly advocating for the "correct" way of self-custody.
In the context of this incident, they advised users not to trust the random number generation of any specific wallet vendor, but instead to generate passphrases more securely by physically rolling dice. Crucially, it appears that many users actually followed this advice.
This is an impressive case. It is extremely rare to find a community with such a high level of self-custody understanding and who truly put it into practice.
Blind Spots and Biases: How Influencers Amplify Risk
On the other hand, why were the losses so severe in the English-speaking communities, where information should have been more abundant?
As some have already pointed out, I also believe one reason the damage has been so widespread is that certain English-speaking influencers and podcasters placed excessive trust in Coldcard.
Please don't misunderstand: I do not doubt that the vast majority of influencers act in good faith and strive to share as accurate information as possible. In this sense, it is unfair to place full responsibility for financial losses solely on influencers who recommended Coldcard.
Meanwhile, a significant number of influential influencers and podcasters in the English-speaking world, whether aware of it or not, have been sponsored by Coldcard or have personal connections with the team. Additionally, their alignment with Coinkite’s “Bitcoin only” philosophy likely biased their objective evaluation and judgment of the product.
As a result, influential community leaders in the English-speaking world developed an excessive trust in Coldcard’s security. Their followers and other Bitcoin users followed suit, further amplifying inaccurate information and misconceptions.
In contrast, Korean influencers—lacking those direct, close ties and viewing Coldcard from a more neutral perspective—were able to calmly analyze the risks of trusting a specific manufacturer’s product. They advised their followers to minimize trust in Coldcard by using methods such as generating random numbers through dice rolls. Ultimately, this approach protected many users from losing funds.
"Don't trust, verify": A Survival Guide Beyond the Code
In hindsight, it all seems simple, but for some time now I’ve recognized that over-trusting influencers—and the resulting “echo chambers” within the Bitcoin community based on personal or financial relationships—is a significant structural issue.
In particular, over the past few years, I have had to notice a significant decline in the overall quality of information and discourse about Bitcoin in the English-speaking world, primarily due to these distorted incentives and personal biases. I believe the Coldcard incident exposed this issue in the worst possible way.
Finally, the Bitcoiners' favorite motto, "Don't trust, verify," is often used in the context of software development. But I believe this motto should also apply to how we filter general information beyond software.
In fact, I want to emphasize that simply considering the messenger’s financial and relational biases—applying basic common sense—can proactively prevent many problems and accidents.
This is something even users without technical expertise can do. Personally, I believe one of the main reasons I’ve been able to survive for over a decade in Bitcoin’s Wild West is my high sensitivity to human biases and incentives.
Learning from the contrast between the success of the Korean Bitcoin community and that of the English-speaking community, I hope the entire community will genuinely reflect on itself and strive to prevent future financial losses and other potential harms.