Bitcoin Promotion Error Sparks Regulatory Reckoning in South Korea

Key takeaways

• A simple data-entry error allowed 620,000 nonexistent BTC to appear in user accounts for 20 minutes because trades update a private database first, with onchain settlement happening later.

• Around 1,788 BTC worth of trades were executed before the exchange locked everything down. What could have been dismissed as a harmless error turned into a serious operational and regulatory event.

• Regulatory filings showed Bithumb held only 175 BTC of its own in Q3 2025, while it held custody of over 42,000 BTC for customers. This highlights how heavily the system depends on accurate internal accounting.

• South Korea’s Financial Supervisory Service focused on why faulty internal data could result in executable trades. It raised fundamental questions about safeguards and tradability controls.

Bithumb, one of South Korea’s largest cryptocurrency exchanges, ran a regular promotional campaign in early February 2026. However, it turned into a major regulatory concern. What started as a simple internal data-entry mistake briefly displayed hundreds of thousands of “ghost Bitcoin” on user dashboards. Some account holders actually traded those balances, prompting regulators to examine the inner mechanisms of centralized crypto platforms more closely.

This article explores how the ghost Bitcoin incident became a key example of vulnerabilities in exchange accounting. It also discusses the reasons behind South Korea’s accelerated move toward more rigorous, bank-like supervision of virtual asset services.

From a modest promotion to a serious error

Bithumb intended to offer a small reward program, crediting users with a modest amount of Korean won, typically 2,000 won ($1.37) per person. Reward programs are a standard tactic to boost user activity.

Instead, an input mistake caused the system to credit Bitcoin (BTC) rather than fiat. For about 20 minutes, the exchange’s internal ledger reflected roughly 620,000 BTC across hundreds of accounts. The value of the ghost BTC was in billions of dollars, vastly exceeding the exchange’s own holdings and total customer reserves.

Staff quickly detected the problem, froze the affected accounts and reversed the credits. But during that brief period, some users sold the ghost Bitcoin in their accounts, executing trades worth around 1,788 BTC before a full lockdown.

Although payouts were processed, it appears that no tokens actually left the exchange. Later, the platform successfully recovered 93% of the lost value in a mix of Korean won and other cryptocurrencies.

How “ghost Bitcoin” can exist

Centralized exchanges operate differently from decentralized ones. They do not settle every trade onchain in real time. Instead, they update user balances on an internal ledger, a private database, allowing fast execution. Onchain movements are batched and processed later, often during deposits or withdrawals.

This architecture facilitates quick trading, high liquidity and competitive fees, but it relies entirely on the accuracy of the exchange’s internal records. Users essentially trust that these records match real asset holdings.

In this case, the ledger temporarily showed unbacked Bitcoin balances. According to a regulatory filing, Bithumb’s own Bitcoin reserves were surprisingly lean in Q3 2025, holding only 175 BTC compared to the 42,619 BTC it manages for its customers.

Did you know? South Korea was among the first countries to mandate real-name bank accounts for crypto trading, a rule introduced in 2018 to curb anonymous speculation and reduce money laundering risks in digital asset markets.

Why regulators viewed it as a systematic failure

South Korea’s Financial Supervisory Service (FSS) acted promptly, concluding that the problem was not merely a typing error but that trades proceeded based on faulty internal data.

This raised core questions: How can an exchange enable trading of assets it does not hold? What safeguards could prevent erroneous balances from becoming tradable? And who is accountable when users benefit from such mistakes?

The FSS conducted on-site inspections at Bithumb and indicated that a formal probe could be launched to examine whether any laws were breached. They cited the event as evidence that existing crypto rules may not sufficiently address internal system oversight.

Ripple effects of the Bitcoin promotion error in the industry

The incident’s impact extended well beyond Bithumb, triggering a wave of industry-wide scrutiny. Digital Asset eXchange Alliance, South Korea’s major crypto alliance, responded by launching a thorough audit of internal controls across all member platforms.

Meanwhile, legislators pointed to the event as evidence of systemic vulnerabilities in centralized exchanges. They noted that operational security had failed to keep pace with the market’s rapid growth.

Ultimately, the crisis highlighted a harsh reality: A single exchange’s failure could threaten the stability of the entire ecosystem.

Did you know? In traditional finance, similar “fat-finger” errors have triggered billion-dollar equity market disruptions, including temporary trading halts on major stock exchanges, showing that operational risk is not unique to crypto.

Liability and consumer protection concerns

A key debate arose over the liability of trades executed on erroneous credits. Some users sold BTC quickly before account freezes took effect. Bithumb reported recovering most of the value and absorbing shortfalls with its own funds. Regulators noted that, under applicable laws, users who profited from erroneous credits could potentially be subject to clawback or restitution claims.

This incident exposed ambiguities in centralized crypto platforms. Displayed balances appear definitive to users, yet they remain reversible if systems make an error. The case compelled regulators to address how protections apply when technical failures produce real financial outcomes.

Advancing to “Phase Two” regulation

Regulators stated that the incident exposed regulatory blind spots in earlier digital asset laws. As they pointed out, regulations emphasized custody, Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and the prevention of manipulation but largely overlooked internal ledger management.

The event is now driving discussions regarding enhanced oversight of the crypto ecosystem, including:

• Required multi-level approvals for promotions and credits

• Stricter, more frequent checks between ledgers and actual reserves

• Defined procedures for erroneous trades and reversals

• Audit and disclosure standards comparable to traditional finance.

This shift moves beyond token listings or promotions to scrutinize the underlying operational infrastructure.

Did you know? South Korea’s crypto trading volumes frequently spike during overnight US market hours, reflecting how global time zones can amplify the impact of exchange incidents beyond domestic users.

A test of trust in centralized exchanges

Although Bithumb took steps quickly to limit the damage, the impact on its reputation is likely to linger. The incident taught users that a balance displayed on a centralized exchange indicates a claim on the platform’s internal systems. It does not indicate direct ownership of onchain assets.

For regulators, the Bitcoin promotion error pointed to a broader concern. As digital asset markets expand, public trust rests on internal mechanisms that function entirely behind closed doors. Should these protocols falter even briefly, the impact could be severe. South Korea’s response has made it evident that regulators now view ledger integrity in crypto exchanges as a systemic risk rather than just an operational detail.

The “ghost Bitcoin” episode will remain in public memory not primarily for its magnitude but for the critical vulnerability it exposed. In crypto transactions, the invisible accounting systems working behind the scenes are as important as the blockchains functioning underneath.