Bter
| Primary URL | Location | Industry | bter[.]com |
Country
China
|
Financial Services
|
|---|
Profile
Bter operated as a Bitcoin exchange that provided an online platform for users to buy, sell, and hold the cryptocurrency. The service functioned as a marketplace where buyers and sellers could place orders and execute trades. Based in China, the exchange offered its trading interface to customers accessing the service via the internet. Its core product was the facilitation of Bitcoin transactions between counterparties. The exchange aimed to provide a reliable venue for converting fiat or other assets into Bitcoin. Users could also store their Bitcoin in wallets managed by the platform.
The exchange maintained offline storage, often referred to as cold storage, to safeguard a portion of its customers’ Bitcoin holdings. In February 2015, attackers compromised this cold storage and removed 7,170 BTC, which at the time was valued at approximately $1.75 million. The loss represented a significant fraction of the exchange’s custodial assets, indicating a substantial scale of funds under management. Following the theft, Bter suspended all trading and withdrawal operations to assess the breach and prevent further losses. The incident was noted as the second major cryptocurrency exchange compromise within a two‑month span, underscoring the prevailing security challenges in the sector. The exchange’s response included a public appeal for the return of the stolen funds.
To incentivize recovery, Bter offered a bounty of 720 BTC to anyone who could provide information leading to the restitution of the stolen cryptocurrency. Simultaneously, the exchange pledged to facilitate withdrawals of unaffected funds once normal operations could be resumed. The episode highlighted Bter’s focus on securing assets through offline storage, while also revealing vulnerabilities in its protective measures. As a China‑based entity, the exchange’s headquarters were located within the country, though no further details about its corporate structure or ownership are provided in the source material. The event remains a notable case study in the history of cryptocurrency exchange security incidents. No additional information about subsidiaries, parent companies, or regulatory licences is available from the given context.