Drift's hacking recovery plan! Funded by Tether with over $120 million, announces abandonment of USDC in favor of USDT

Drift Protocol Announces $150 Million Recovery Plan Led by Tether and Fully Settled Using $USDT . The move aims to address the $295 million loss caused by North Korean hackers.

Strategic Shift in Relaunch Operations and Settlement Assets

Solana’s largest decentralized perpetual contract exchange, Drift Protocol, announced yesterday (4/16) a comprehensive recovery plan totaling $150 million, designed to respond to the $295 million asset loss resulting from a North Korean hacker attack in early April.

Image source: X/@DriftProtocol Drift Protocol announced yesterday a $150 million comprehensive recovery plan

This initiative is supported by stablecoin leader Tether, which has committed up to $127.5 million, with the remaining $20 million raised jointly by several unnamed ecosystem partners. This relaunch plan signifies a major infrastructure overhaul for Drift, as the platform has decided to fully abandon Circle-issued $USDC and instead adopt Tether’s $USDT as the core settlement asset. This move not only addresses the immediate financial crisis but also demonstrates Tether’s strategic ambition to challenge $USDC ’s long-standing dominance on the Solana network.

According to the agreement signed by both parties, this $150 million fund is not a one-time cash injection but a combination of future revenue-linked credit lines, ecosystem-specific grants, and liquidity loans to market makers. This multi-layered funding structure aims to ensure the platform can regain deep trading liquidity and stable operational resources after relaunch, while positioning $USDT as the operational core of the entire trading system.

• Related news: DeFi platform Drift hacked on April Fools’ Day! Hackers drain $270 million in assets, admin keys become vulnerabilities

Innovative Recovery Mechanism and Compensation Token Plan

For the severely affected 128k users, Drift has devised a long-term asset recovery mechanism aimed at gradually compensating for the $295 million lost in the hack. The platform will establish a dedicated “Recovery Pool,” funded by a portion of future trading fees, commitments from ecosystem partners, and any subsequently recovered stolen assets through law enforcement or on-chain tracing.

To provide users with liquidity and rights assurance, Drift plans to issue a new, transferable recovery token to affected KOLs. This token is independent of the existing governance token $DRIFT and represents the holder’s claim on assets in the recovery pool. Users can choose to hold it long-term, gradually receive payouts as platform revenue flows into the recovery pool, or sell it on the secondary market for early liquidity. This plan reflects Drift’s long-term commitment to the community, emphasizing that restoring user trust is the top priority after relaunch.

Drift CEO stated that this system links compensation progress to the platform’s actual operational performance, ensuring user rights are protected without imposing a destructive burden on platform growth.

Hack Penetration and Comprehensive Defense System Upgrade

Investigation reports indicate that the attack causing asset loss was not accidental but a carefully planned infiltration by a North Korean government-funded hacking group, lasting over six months. The attackers disguised themselves as professional quantitative traders, gaining trust through participation in physical meetings and social engineering. They further exploited malicious TestFlight applications and software vulnerabilities to infiltrate core contributors’ devices, ultimately gaining control of multisignature wallets.

During the attack on April 1, hackers drained assets stored in the core vault within a short period, causing $DRIFT token prices to plummet over 70%. To learn from this and eliminate security risks, Drift implemented strict security upgrades before relaunch, including hiring top security firms OtterSec and Asymmetric Research for independent audits.

• Related news: Drift hacker case: North Korean hackers infiltrated for 6 months, creating the biggest DeFi theft in spring 2026

Post-relaunch, the platform will implement a new community governance multisig system, where all signatures must be completed on dedicated isolated hardware devices, with independent content verification outside the trading interface. This enhanced protection process aims to minimize risks of human infiltration and device poisoning through physical isolation and multiple verifications, establishing industry-leading security defenses.

Reorganization of Stablecoin Landscape and Circle Trust Crisis

Drift’s asset transfer also sparked in-depth discussions within the crypto industry about the responsibilities of stablecoin issuers. After the attack, hackers used Circle’s cross-chain transfer protocol (CCTP) to move approximately $232 million of $USDC from Solana to Ethereum for money laundering over a six-hour window. On-chain data shows that despite the opportunity to intervene during this half-day window, Circle failed to freeze the stolen funds promptly, drawing strong criticism from community members including well-known investigator ZachXBT.

Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire reiterated the company’s stance, emphasizing that they only freeze assets upon receiving official law enforcement orders, to comply with legal and regulatory standards and protect user rights. In contrast, Tether demonstrated a more proactive intervention efficiency in handling hackers and illicit funds, which became a key factor in Drift’s decision to switch to $USDT .

Further reading
Who’s to blame for Drift being hacked? Hackers cross-chain assets but no freeze, ZachXBT criticizes Circle’s negligence
Slow USDC freezing criticized! Circle CEO: Only freeze upon court order, refuse to freeze privately

Currently, although $USDC still holds a leading market cap on Solana, the shift of high-volume platforms like Drift and Tether’s active resource injections have fundamentally changed the stablecoin competition landscape on Solana. This incident not only led Circle to face class-action lawsuits but also prompted the market to reevaluate the role of stablecoin issuers as gatekeepers in decentralized finance environments.