Edited By
David Chen

A rising number of Coldcard users have reported severe weaknesses associated with the device's firmware long before the major incidents noted in July 2026. This has ignited discussions on whether the incidents could have been prevented or worse, intentionally overlooked by the developers.
Reports have surfaced from as early as August 2020 analyzing unauthorized fund transfers linked to the security flaws in Coldcard devices. Notably, many victims highlighted dangerously low dice entropy, hinting at pre-existing vulnerabilities that allowed for automated thefts.
A few significant theft incidents caught attention:
August 2020: An early report surfaced regarding missing Bitcoin from a Coldcard Mk3, but it cannot be linked to the firmware bug that developed later.
February 2022: A user claimed nearly 2 BTC was swept after selecting automated dice rolls during setup, marking the first known theft after the firmware's vulnerability was documented.
July 2023: One victim, using a Mk4 Coldcard, stated losing funds after entering device-generated seeds mixed with Python values aligns closely with the confirmed firmware bug.
"Users were flagged for reporting issues and received no support from Coldcard," said one user addressing frustrations.
On forums and user boards, the backlash against Coldcard grows:
Accusations of Negligence: Several comments imply that Coldcard may have known about the vulnerabilities yet failed to act. "Who else thinks Coldcard planted the bug purposely?" questioned a critical user.
Calls for Investigation: A thread highlighted concerns suggesting a systematic issue that warrants urgent investigation.
Early Warnings: Multiple users reported weak-seed theft incidents years prior to the July 2026 disclosures.
Evidence of Automated Attacks: An organized approach to monitor and exploit vulnerable Coldcard wallets seems to have existed for some time.
Foundation's Awareness: A warning issued by the Foundation in April 2024 confirmed ongoing user losses related to low-dice counts, indicating potential negligence in communication.
As investigations continue, the question arises: could better security measures have prevented these losses? While the community calls for accountability, the cloud of uncertainty hangs over Coldcard and its network of users, many still feeling the financial impact of these reported breaches.
With the 2026 Waves serving as a backdrop, clarity surrounding Coldcard's obligations to its users, and the integrity of its software becomes all the more critical as the fallout continues.
As Coldcard users seek clarity, it seems likely that weβll witness intensified scrutiny over its security practices. Experts estimate a 70% chance the company will face external audits due to pressure from both users and potential regulatory bodies. The community's voices could lead to tighter security updates within the next six months, as users demand better transparency and accountability. If Coldcard addresses these issues head-on, it could restore some trust, though a significant portion of the user base may remain skeptical, influencing their future buying decisions and brand loyalty.
This situation bears a striking resemblance to the early days of online banking security issues in the late 1990s. Back then, many customers faced unauthorized transactions due to inadequate security measures, which led to a wave of public distrust. As financial institutions scrambled to build better safeguards, only a few adapted quickly enough to keep their user base intact. The parallels lie in the sheer unpredictability of consumer reactions; just like then, todayβs Coldcard users could redefine their loyalty to brands that prioritize their digital safety, turning the industry on its head once again.