USDC (USDC)

1/ Welcome to the Circle $USDC files.

$420M+ in alleged compliance failures since 2022, including fifteen cases of the US-regulated stablecoin issuer taking minimal action against illicit funds. https://t.co/OiWZz5MrVM

Prominent on-chain tracking blogger ZachXBT accuses the compliant stablecoin USDC issuer Circle of multiple and systematic neglect.

A latest review shows that since 2022, this USDC‑issuing stablecoin company has failed to promptly freeze the funds involved in several major hacking incidents, with a cumulative amount exceeding $420 million.

USDC has always been positioned as a compliant, regulatable stablecoin. It is not only a centralized asset pegged to the US dollar, but also embeds the ability to freeze and blacklist addresses, theoretically allowing on‑chain blocking of grey‑money flows.

In reality, many times it does not do so.

The most recent case occurred in April 2026. In the Drift Protocol hack, $280 million was stolen. Within six hours, the attacker used Circle’s own cross‑chain bridge CCTP to move $230 million USDC from the Solana network to Ethereum, splitting it into over 100 transactions for gradual laundering.

During this process, Circle, the issuer of USDC, took no freezing action. Subsequent on‑chain analysis linked the attacker to a North‑Korean‑related organization.

Similar situations are not isolated. In recent years the pattern has recurred, for example the Cetus Protocol hack, where $61 million USDC was transferred cross‑chain within 1.5 hours, and the freeze occurred a month later (by then the hacker had already cleaned the funds).

In the Nomad Bridge hack, $45 million USDC had a 30‑minute window for freezing, but none was applied.

During the Ledger supply‑chain attack, USDC remained untouched for three hours, while the issuer of the neighboring stablecoin USDT, Tether, froze the USDT assets at the same address first.

In the Bybit hack, Tether froze USDT within a few hours, but Circle’s USDC lagged by 24 hours.

Even in some cases where law‑enforcement agencies, project teams, or even temporary court injunctions intervened, Circle still did not execute an immediate freeze response.

Thus the issue becomes very clear: Circle constantly stresses that it is the most compliant stablecoin issuer, yet at critical moments you cannot tell whether this compliance means legal compliance, user‑asset safety, or simply non‑interference with on‑chain fund flows.

Accordingly, on‑chain tracker ZachXBT listed up to 18 tweets to accuse and substantiate this matter.

This is nothing but a big makeshift troupe.