Crypto Wallet Attacker Loses $370K to MEV Bot

A reported wallet-drain incident appears to have turned back on the alleged thief during a swap. The narrow public trail available for this story rests on a BaseScan transaction record, a post from @osint_based on X, and one report from The Crypto Times, while the local research brief still labels the case as only partially verified.

According to an X post from @osint_based and a report from The Crypto Times, an attacker drained about $500,000 from a crypto wallet. Those two links are also the basis for the amount cited here, because the local brief did not complete an independent verification pass before the research run stopped.

Wallet Drain Triggers a Reported Crypto Theft

The same secondary reporting says the attacker then lost about $370,000 during a swap, sharply reducing the apparent proceeds from the theft. Coinlive has covered other cases where compromised funds moved into follow-on transactions, including a hardware-wallet theft that ended in a Monero swap and a phishing attack that cost a user $3.05M, but this case is unusual because the reported loss hit the suspected attacker rather than the original victim.

How the Reported MEV Bot Loss Was Tied to a Swap

The Crypto Times report links the loss to a swap, and the research brief points to a cited BaseScan transaction as the on-chain reference behind that claim. Based on those materials, the narrowest defensible reading is that the attacker tried to convert the stolen funds and a bot extracted value from that trade before the attacker could preserve the full haul. For related coverage, see Crypto Scam Victim Loses $280M via Hardware Wallet.

That reported sequence is why the incident stands out: the same transaction path that was meant to realize the theft appears to have exposed it to automated extraction. Coinlive has seen a related reversal dynamic before in a case where a crypto hacker later became the victim in a phishing loss, but here the available reporting ties the setback specifically to the swap named by The Crypto Times and the transaction linked in BaseScan.

What the On-Chain Trail Shows and What It Does Not

What can actually be checked from the brief is narrower than the headline: the research output cites one BaseScan transaction record and says the process terminated after duplicate fetch attempts on that same URL. That leaves the transaction link in view, but it does not provide a completed verification table for sender, receiver, timestamp, or value inside the brief itself. For related coverage, see Binance to Pause Some Services and Delist Several Crypto Trading Pairs.

For that reason, the theft narrative still rests on the @osint_based post on X and the Crypto Times write-up, not on a fully verified incident dossier. Readers who follow wallet-security stories may recognize the same need for disciplined sourcing seen in earlier reports on an Ethereum liquidity-provider loss; in this case, a fuller breakdown would need additional wallet tracing or security-firm analysis beyond what the current brief includes.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Cryptocurrency and digital asset markets carry significant risk. Always do your own research before making decisions.