On January 15, 2026, Trust Wallet Browser Extension v2.68 was reported to have a security vulnerability, exposing some users' assets to high risk. With the official announcement of the latest update, the incident quickly transitioned from "vulnerability exposure" to the "compensation and risk control" phase: on one hand, Trust Wallet has announced that the first batch of compensation has been completed, stating that the overall claims have covered approximately 95% of the affected funds (according to multiple public sources); on the other hand, the project team has set February 14, 2026 as the deadline for claims, introducing mandatory migration and red warnings for old wallets in the new version, directly conveying time pressure to users who are still on the sidelines. Under the triple goals of protecting assets, controlling risks, and rebuilding trust, this compensation battle surrounding the browser extension vulnerability is evolving into a real test of responsibility boundaries and users' self-rescue capabilities.
The Key Week from Vulnerability Exposure to Compensation Initiation
From the timeline perspective, the progress of this incident has been compressed into a very tight period. On January 15, Trust Wallet released the latest announcement, confirming the security vulnerability in its browser extension v2.68, and simultaneously proposed a basic framework of "compensation + migration." In the critical week following the announcement, the official side collected claims from affected users while promoting the launch of a new version and the implementation of a marking mechanism. Under the multiple pressures of information disclosure, public attention, and user sentiment, they gradually signaled the initiation of the first batch of compensation. It can currently be confirmed that Trust Wallet has completed the first batch of user compensation, but the official repeatedly emphasizes that this is just the starting point of the overall work, and subsequent progress will continue in a "batch review, batch release" manner, meaning that a considerable number of applications are still in the queue for verification. It is worth noting that during this period, the technical details and the scale of the impact disclosed by the official were relatively restrained, without providing exact numbers of wallets or loss amounts; statements like "approximately 2,596 wallets are affected, pending verification" circulated only in the community and media as second-hand information, which somewhat amplified the market's expectation for "more details" and created tension between the official's cautious communication and users' strong desire for knowledge.
95% of Claims Submitted: The Speed and Blind Spots of Community Response
In less than a month since the incident began to unfold, Trust Wallet has publicly stated that it has received claims for approximately 95% of the affected funds, a figure corroborated by multiple A/B sources. In terms of response efficiency, this means that the vast majority of affected users completed self-checks, submitted materials, and connected with the official side in a very short time after the information was released, indicating a relatively swift community self-rescue response. The high coverage rate largely stems from the official announcement's continuous reminders about risks and deadlines, as well as the widespread dissemination of related security tips in both Chinese and English communities. Additionally, media and KOLs repeatedly relaying the "vulnerability - compensation - migration" process made more users realize that they might be in a risk exposure zone within a short time. Meanwhile, various community-organized "self-check tutorials" and "application steps" also improved information accessibility and lowered the threshold for ordinary users to complete claims. However, on the other side of the data, about 5% of the affected funds have yet to enter the claims process. For this minority group, the risks stem more from information mismatch and delayed responses: some may not yet be aware of the existence of the vulnerability and the deadline, some may mistakenly believe their assets are unaffected and choose to ignore it, and there may also be users who have concerns about KYC and material submission processes and have yet to take action. As the deadline approaches, the passivity of this group regarding risk exposure and time costs will become increasingly prominent.
Mandatory Migration and Red Marking of Old Wallets: Safety First or Experience Shock
Regarding this incident, the most impactful action taken by Trust Wallet on the technical side is the introduction of mandatory migration requirements in the new version, marking old affected wallets as "unsafe." Specific measures include: providing clear risk warnings for affected wallets within the browser extension, presenting related addresses in red or with significant warnings on the interface, guiding and even forcing users to migrate their assets to newly generated safe wallet addresses, thereby reducing the possibility of subsequent exploitation. This strategy has clear necessity in terms of security risk control logic: once it is determined that a batch of addresses or mnemonic generation paths has potential vulnerabilities, continuing to use these wallets constitutes a structural risk, even if they have not all been exploited by attackers in the short term; through mandatory migration, the old risk paths can be "cut off" technically, creating a more controllable environment for subsequent compensation and tracking. However, for ordinary users, mandatory migration often means additional operational costs and psychological burdens, as many need to re-understand the backup, export, and import processes, and the order of migration for multiple chains and assets can also cause anxiety. More controversially, according to a single source from Deep Tide TechFlow, Trust Wallet has clearly stated that it will no longer compensate for new losses incurred from continued use of affected wallets. If this statement is understood by users as "the official has provided a lifeboat, and the consequences of not boarding are at their own risk," it inadvertently strengthens the rigidity of the migration requirement and delineates a clearer boundary between security responsibility and user self-responsibility.
Compensation Progress, Claims Deadline, and the Race Against Time for Trust Restoration
From the current pace, this compensation battle presents a state of "first batch completed + batch review" and "February 14 claims deadline" progressing in parallel. On one hand, the landing of the first batch of compensation sends a signal to the market that "the project party is willing to take responsibility, and the flow of funds has started," partially alleviating early panic. On the other hand, the remaining applications still need to be reviewed one by one, and how to strike a balance that most users can accept between efficiency and prudence becomes a key point of contention in the coming weeks. From a risk control perspective, the project party must remain vigilant against miscompensation, duplicate compensation, and potential malicious claims, which will naturally prolong the review process; however, from the user's perspective, waiting for clear feedback after submitting materials can easily be interpreted as "delay" or even "passing the buck," thereby amplifying doubts about the speed of compensation and safety communication. In market discussions, the focus of controversy has gradually concentrated on several issues: first, whether there is a time lag between the attack window and the official disclosure, leading some users to continue using vulnerable wallets without knowledge; second, whether the compensation standards and responsibility boundaries are transparent enough, for example, whether the requirement to "prove losses" will exclude some users with insufficient technical capabilities; third, under the rules of mandatory migration and "no compensation for new losses," how much safety buffer space remains for those who have not yet completed migration. These contradictions are not uncommon but are amplified in a high-frequency trading and high-volatility asset environment, directly affecting Trust Wallet's pace and rhythm in this race for trust restoration.
How This Crisis Will Change the Consensus on Wallet Security
Zooming out from the individual case, the Trust Wallet browser extension vulnerability incident is driving the industry to conduct a collective review of the systemic risks of browser extension wallets. Compared to hardware wallets or mobile light wallets, browser extensions have long been in a tension of "high convenience - high exposure": they are embedded in every corner of daily interactions but also share an environment with various web scripts and plugin ecosystems. Once there are flaws in underlying permission control or random number generation, the risk transmission paths are often more concealed and harder for ordinary users to detect. Against this backdrop, Trust Wallet's chosen combination strategy of "proactive mandatory migration + publicly setting compensation boundaries" may become a reference template for handling future security incidents. On one hand, mandatory migration reduces the long-term spread of residual risks at the technical level, avoiding the awkward situation of "known toxicity, yet still allowed to drink"; on the other hand, pre-defining the boundaries of "which losses can be compensated and until when" may inevitably provoke controversy in public opinion but also establishes a set of predictable risk contracts for both the project party and users. For the entire industry, the subsequent trajectory of this incident will directly impact users' overall trust in self-custody wallets: if compensation and migration conclude smoothly, Trust Wallet may retain or even reshape some reputation after the pain; conversely, if there are large-scale complaints or transparency issues, competing wallet products may quickly benefit from user migration, and regulatory attention and compliance requirements for browser extension products may also be elevated to new heights.
Four-Week Countdown: A Mutual Choice for Users and Project Parties
Looking back from the current point in time, Trust Wallet's response battle surrounding the vulnerability has entered the mid-game: most claims for affected funds have been registered, and the first batch of compensation has been announced, but what truly determines whether technical trust can be restored is the comprehensive performance of compensation rhythm, migration execution, and communication transparency in the coming weeks. The claims deadline of February 14, 2026, is not just an administrative time node but also overlaps with the rule turning point of "stopping compensation for new losses," which is the last window that users who have not yet acted must face. For ordinary users, the more realistic action advice at this time is: first, immediately confirm whether they have used the Trust Wallet browser extension v2.68 during the relevant time period; if in doubt, they should quickly complete asset migration and claim submission; second, retain key screenshots and on-chain records during the operation as proof for subsequent communication; finally, even after the event settles, they should reassess their wallet diversification and backup strategies to avoid systemic risks from single points of failure. For industry participants and other wallet projects, this incident should be treated as a "bloody sample" for review: how to preset more detailed risk break mechanisms during the product design phase, how to complete information transmission in the shortest time when an incident occurs, and how to find a more mature balance between legal, risk control, and user experience. In the future, compliance and professional security operations will increasingly become the main theme of the wallet track, and the success or failure of this Trust Wallet vulnerability compensation battle will also be regarded as an important coordinate for measuring the industry's emergency response capabilities for a long time.
Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
