Bc.game Returns 100,000 DOT to Hyperbridge After Order

In Short

BC Game has returned 100,000 DOT tokens linked to the Hyperbridge exploit.

The transfer followed a Federal High Court of Nigeria order and an enforcement request from INTERPOL’s National Central Bureau in Nigeria.

Hyperbridge confirmed the return on October 22, 2026.

What Happened

BC.GAME, an online gaming platform, said it returned 100,000 DOT tokens linked to the April 2026 Hyperbridge incident. Hyperbridge is a cross-chain interoperability protocol, meaning it helps move assets between blockchains.

BC Game said the funds were identified as a suspicious deposit on April 13, 2026, the same day as the Hyperbridge exploit. It said the tokens were moved to BC Game’s official hot wallet on April 15, 2026. A hot wallet is a crypto wallet connected to the internet, like an always-on account used for day-to-day transactions.

BC Game said the tokens were frozen and held pending further action. It said the return complied with the court order dated September 22, 2026, the INTERPOL request, and a recovery request from Hyperbridge. The tokens were transferred to Hyperbridge “for further handling.”

In its own statement, Hyperbridge said it recognised the effects of the incident on affected users and called the recovery of the 100,000 DOT a milestone in the recovery process. Hyperbridge also said further recovery steps are ongoing, but it did not provide details on distribution of the returned tokens.

Why It Matters

The returned DOT is tied to an exploit that Hyperbridge said began with a vulnerability in its Token Gateway smart contract on Ethereum. Attackers submitted a fabricated cross-chain message, which allowed the minting of approximately 1 billion unbacked bridged DOT tokens.

Hyperbridge said the fabricated tokens were moved into liquidity pools and swapped for real cryptocurrency. It said the estimated impact was revised from an initial $237,000 to approximately $2.5 million, including damage to incentive pools across Ethereum, Base, BNB Chain, and Arbitrum.

The case also shows how law enforcement requests and court orders can play a role in asset recovery when funds touch centralised platforms.