The Coldcard hardware wallet security incident, which broke out over the weekend, is still rippling through the Bitcoin industry. In a commentary translated by PANews, Japanese Bitcoin industry participant Koji Higashi said the sharp contrast between South Korea and the English-speaking Bitcoin community has turned the episode into a broader test of how users assess information, trust, and self-custody practices.
Higashi wrote that he was not directly affected, but said the scale of the damage and the possible negative impact on Bitcoin’s future left him deeply shaken. He then pointed to what he heard from the Korean Bitcoin community about its response to the Coldcard incident, thanking @atomic for providing information.
His central observation was striking: South Korea had many Coldcard users, especially among experienced Bitcoiners, yet there were almost no reported cases of direct bitcoin losses there. By contrast, many of the victims came from the English-speaking community, including people widely seen as knowledgeable about Bitcoin self-custody.
For Higashi, the difference was not simply about technical skill or a better understanding of Bitcoin. He argued that it exposed a structural weakness that has been getting worse in the Bitcoin space for some time: a loss of neutrality and an overreliance on influencers.
Korea’s strong preference for air-gapped self-custody
The article said the Korean Bitcoin community has long shown unusual enthusiasm for self-custody and hardware wallets, especially air-gapped setups, meaning wallets that do not connect to the internet or wireless communications. That made Coldcard, one of the earlier products to offer air-gapped functionality, especially popular among veteran users in South Korea, with what the author described as a sizable local user base before the incident.
That background might have suggested that Korean users would be heavily exposed when the incident surfaced. Instead, according to people familiar with the local community, almost no users there were affected.
Higashi traced that outcome to a consistent message from Korean community leaders and influencers, who had strongly promoted what they saw as the “right” way to handle self-custody. In the context of this incident, that meant telling users not to trust the random number generation of any specific wallet vendor. They instead encouraged users to generate seed phrases more securely by rolling physical dice themselves.
Just as important, many users appear to have actually followed that advice. Higashi described this as rare: a community with a high level of understanding about self-custody that also puts those standards into practice at scale.
Why losses spread more widely in English-speaking circles
The article then turned to the English-speaking Bitcoin community, where Higashi said the information environment should, in theory, have been richer. Even so, the damage there was much more severe.
He said one reason the losses became so widespread was that some English-speaking influencers and podcast hosts had placed too much trust in Coldcard. At the same time, he was careful not to assign blanket blame to those who had recommended the product. In his view, most of them acted in good faith and tried to share information they believed was accurate.
Still, Higashi argued that many prominent figures and podcast hosts in the English-speaking Bitcoin world had accepted sponsorships from Coldcard or maintained personal ties with the team. He also said their alignment with Coinkite’s “Bitcoin only” philosophy likely affected their ability to evaluate the product with full objectivity.
The result, as he described it, was excessive trust in Coldcard’s security among influential community voices. Their followers and other Bitcoin users then echoed those judgments, which widened the spread of inaccurate information and flawed assumptions.
A neutrality gap and two very different outcomes
Higashi contrasted that with the Korean response. Because Korean influencers lacked those direct and close ties, he said, they were able to look at Coldcard more neutrally and examine the risk of trusting any single vendor’s product with greater distance.
That led them to recommend methods that reduced dependence on the wallet maker itself, including generating randomness by rolling dice. According to the article, that approach helped protect many users from losing funds.
“Don’t Trust, Verify” should go beyond software
In the final section, Higashi broadened the lesson beyond the incident itself. He said that, in hindsight, the pattern may look obvious, but he has for some time seen overtrust in influencers, and the Bitcoin-community echo chambers shaped by personal and financial relationships, as a major structural problem.
He added that over the past few years, the overall quality of Bitcoin information and discussion in the English-speaking world has deteriorated noticeably, largely because of distorted incentives and personal bias. In his view, the Coldcard incident exposed that weakness in the worst possible way.
Higashi said Bitcoin’s favorite motto, “Don’t Trust, Verify,” is often used in software development. He argued it should also apply to how people filter general information outside software. Simply paying attention to the financial and relational biases of the messenger, he wrote, could help users avoid many preventable problems and incidents.
That, he said, is not something reserved for technical experts. He added that one reason he has lasted for more than a decade in Bitcoin’s “wild west” is his sensitivity to human bias and incentives. Using the contrast between the Korean and English-speaking communities during the Coldcard episode, he called on the broader Bitcoin community to reflect on its own habits and try to avoid future fund losses and other harm.