In November 2025, South Korea's largest exchange Upbit was attacked by a hot wallet on the Solana chain, resulting in the theft of $36 million (44.5 billion KRW). Stolen assets included tokens such as SOL, BONK, JUP, RAY, PYTH, RNDR, USDC, and ORCA. Security company Halborn analyzed that the attackers exploited a flaw in the digital signature infrastructure to derive private keys from the on-chain history for withdrawals. The attack occurred on the same day that Upbit's parent company Dunamu was acquired and coincided with the sixth anniversary of the exchange's previous theft. This "ritualized" timing, along with the technical sophistication of the methods used, made the North Korean Lazarus Group the primary suspect. The deeper significance of this attack far exceeds the surface economic losses; it marks that state-level APT organizations have targeted cryptocurrency exchanges as long-term monetization objectives and have developed systematic attack capabilities. Although Upbit responded quickly by freezing deposits and withdrawals and announced on December 10 that 99% of user assets would be transferred to cold wallets—exceeding 80% of regulatory minimum standards—this post-event remedy does not erase the structural vulnerabilities of centralized exchanges when facing state-sponsored hackers. The market's reaction was relatively restrained; although BTC fell to $86,000 on December 2, this was more due to market adjustment rather than a single event. Localized impacts were mainly reflected in the short-term pressure on KRW trading pairs and a surge in trading volume. On-chain data showed that Solana's TVL had decreased from $11.3 billion to $9.1 billion in the period leading up to the attack (November 1-26), while after the attack on November 27, it slightly increased by 2% to $9.2 billion and then stabilized at $9 billion, indicating that the overall ecosystem's resilience remains. However, the net outflow of USDC on Solana reached -$294 million on November 27, possibly reflecting a panic withdrawal of some funds. A more nuanced perspective is that this attack exposed systematic flaws in the hot wallet signature architecture, as even leading exchanges have failed to achieve physical isolation of the signature process and zero-knowledge of key materials. Although Upbit's subsequent transfer of 99% of assets to cold storage enhances safety margins, it also implies a decrease in liquidity response speed and sacrifices user experience. This dilemma of balancing security and convenience becomes particularly acute in the face of state-sponsored hackers, as organizations like the Lazarus Group have resources and patience that far exceed ordinary hackers; they can linger in target systems for extended periods waiting for the optimal attack window. Furthermore, of the $175 million stolen in DeFi in November, Upbit accounted for 21%, indicating that centralized exchanges remain high-value targets for attacks. While social media and news outlets have pointed out the possibility of North Korean hackers and emphasized the need to improve key management models, few have discussed how to price the geopolitical risks posed by state-level attackers or whether the crypto industry should establish insurance or mutual aid mechanisms for such "force majeure" events. Upbit's promise to fully compensate users preserved its reputation, but the long-term impact of the $36 million loss on its financial health remains uncertain, and whether this "exchange-backed" model can be sustained depends on whether the frequency and scale of attacks remain within manageable limits. If future losses reach hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars, even the largest exchanges may face insolvency crises. Technically, SOL's price has remained relatively stable post-breach at $137, with a 4-hour RSI of 58.9 indicating mild bullishness, but a daily RSI of 48.7 remains neutral, and the price is below the 50-day moving average of $145, suggesting limited upward momentum. Although open interest increased by 2.41% to $7.3 billion, the positive funding rates (Binance 0.001858%, Bybit 0.01%) indicate that long positions are becoming riskier at high levels. The overall declining OBV reflects distribution pressure, suggesting institutions may be using the rebound to offload assets. A deeper concern is that the Upbit incident has reinforced regulators' arguments for "more stringent regulation of centralized custodianship," which could catalyze an increase in exchange licensing and capital requirements both in South Korea and globally. Smaller exchanges may be eliminated under compliance cost pressures, further increasing market concentration while reducing competition and raising user costs. The ongoing existence of state-sponsored hackers makes "self-custody" the only absolutely safe choice, but the insufficient key management capabilities of retail investors mean that many users will suffer losses or choose to exit the market during this transition. Therefore, the Upbit theft is not just a security incident; it is a stress test for the crypto industry under the triple challenges of geopolitical issues, centralized risks, and user security education. The answer to this test may not be fully resolvable through technological advancement, as long as value is stored on connected devices and managed by centralized entities, there will always be a potential for breaches by state-level adversaries. The existence of this structural risk fundamentally jeopardizes the long-term stable growth of the crypto market unless the industry can find a new balance between decentralization, user experience, and regulatory compliance; otherwise, similar incidents will recur cyclically, continuously eroding market confidence and capital stock.