Crypto influencer Aditya Singh, also known as CryptoAdy, has raised concerns over the reported figures surrounding the WazirX hack earlier this year.
In a post on X (Twitter), Singh questioned the accuracy of the percentages disclosed by WazirX regarding the amount of user funds affected by the hack.
Was it a 42% or a 45% Hack On WazirX?
Singh, who is also the founder of Crypto India, pointed out discrepancies in WazirX’s affidavits and reports, alleging that the exchange’s claims of 45% of user funds being hacked do not align with the figures presented.
According to WazirX’s initial affidavit, the platform held $570 million in user funds, with $234 million stolen during the hack. Singh calculated that this should amount to a hacked percentage of 41%, significantly lower than WazirX’s reported figure of 45%.
WazirX changed its figures in a second affidavit, stating that total user funds were $546 million, which led to more inconsistencies. Singh pointed out that even with this updated estimate, the hacked proportion is still only about 42.8%, which is less than the 45% claimed by WazirX.
Singh emphasized that in WazirX’s initial report, the exchange mentioned that 42% of user funds had been hacked, a figure that was later edited to 45%. “The question is, why is WazirX claiming 45% were hacked when, as per the numbers, the hacked percentage comes to 42-43%?” Singh asked in his post.
More Questions Come to Light Related to Wazir X Hack
He further mentioned that data demonstrating a $244.8 million discrepancy between assets and liabilities was revealed by the Kroll team and the exchange during WazirX’s second Townhall meeting. Singh calculated this difference against the $546.5 million revised user fund amount and came up with a hacked percentage of 44.79%.
This number is in line with the 45% that WazirX stated, which makes Singh wonder why the exchange’s early reporting differed from their later discoveries. He ended his piece by asking, “Why did WazirX lie in their initial report claiming 45% of user funds were hacked, which after two months miraculously fits well with the gap data?”
Singh asked WazirX to resolve these disparities and make it clear whether any important information had been omitted throughout the reporting procedure. The exchange has not yet publicly addressed the issues brought forward by CryptoAdy.
Within the cryptocurrency world, the WazirX breach continues to be a source of conflict, with users calling for further platform transparency. Singh’s in-depth examination of the data raises additional questions, and many are now waiting for WazirX to formally respond.