Are Banks Losing Confidence in Crypto After Recent Hacks?

Three days after the $293 million KelpDAO hack rocked DeFi markets, Jefferies LLC — a 64-year-old Wall Street investment bank — published a research note warning that banks and asset managers may need to pause and rethink their blockchain ambitions. 

That's not a crypto-native outlet sounding the alarm. That's TradFi talking to TradFi, in language that compliance officers and board risk committees actually listen to. 

The crypto banking risk conversation just moved from developer forums to institutional research desks — and that shift matters more than the hack itself.

Key Takeaways

• Jefferies says the KelpDAO exploit may slow short-term TradFi adoption of tokenization.
• Major players like BlackRock and DTCC weren’t affected, but future cross-chain plans face new scrutiny.
• Two North Korea-linked hacks drained $578M in 18 days, intensifying compliance concerns.

Trade with confidence. Bitrue is a secure and trusted crypto trading platform for buying, selling, and trading Bitcoin and altcoins.
Register Now to Claim Your Prize!

What Jefferies Actually Said — and Why It Matters

Jefferies analyst Andrew Moss didn't write a panic note. He wrote something more carefully calibrated. "The potential loss of trust poses both near- and longer-term risks regardless of who is to blame," he stated. 

Then came the key sentence: "Although we don't expect TradFi firms to throw in the crypto towel, the rollout or expansion of tokenization initiatives across banks, asset managers, fintechs and payments may decelerate temporarily." 

That word — temporarily — is doing a lot of work. It tells institutional clients: you have cover to slow down without officially reversing course. It's the analyst equivalent of a yellow light. Nobody runs a yellow light when they're already nervous about the intersection.

Read Also: RCSC Token vs FOF Token Price Comparison and Risk Analysis

The Hack That Made Banks Flinch

The KelpDAO exploit on April 18, 2026, was not a generic DeFi breach. Attackers — preliminarily linked to North Korea's Lazarus Group — compromised the RPC nodes powering LayerZero's bridge verification system, poisoned its data feed, and forged a cross-chain message that released 116,500 rsETH worth roughly $293 million from KelpDAO's bridge. 

The stolen tokens went straight into Aave as collateral, borrowing $190 million in WETH against assets that had no real backing — leaving the protocol with up to $230 million in potential bad debt. Aave lost $8.45 billion in deposits in 48 hours. 

DeFi's total value locked dropped $14 billion to a one-year low. For anyone sitting in a bank's risk committee reviewing blockchain pilot programs, that sequence of events — forged collateral, cascading lending impairment, mass withdrawals — is exactly the scenario their stress tests were supposed to rule out.

Read Also: ChatGPT XRP Price Prediction for Q2 2026: What to Expect

Why Tokenization Is Now in the Crosshairs

The institutions most exposed to this confidence shift aren't the ones that already got hit — they're the ones that were planning to go deeper. 

As Jefferies noted, current TradFi blockchain products from BlackRock and Franklin Templeton largely sit on single chains and weren't directly touched by the KelpDAO infrastructure failure. 

But the next phase of tokenization — cross-border collateral movement, 24/7 securities settlement, real-time asset transfer between institutions — requires cross-chain bridges. 

That's the exact category of infrastructure Lazarus Group just demonstrated it can compromise at scale. DTCC was exploring LayerZero's Zero blockchain for tokenized securities settlement. 

ICE, the NYSE's parent company, was evaluating it for 24/7 trading infrastructure. Citadel Securities made a strategic investment in ZRO. All of those partnerships now carry a footnote that didn't exist before April 18.

Read Also: Is Trezor Crypto Wallet Safe to Use in 2026?

The North Korea Factor Changes the Compliance Math

Two major DeFi exploits in 18 days — $293 million from KelpDAO on April 18 and $285 million from Drift on April 1 — both attributed to North Korea's Lazarus Group using different attack vectors. One exploited social engineering. 

The other poisoned infrastructure RPC nodes and launched a coordinated DDoS. This is not opportunistic hacking. It is a sustained, state-funded campaign that adapts its tactics faster than DeFi protocols update their security standards. 

For a regulated financial institution, adding "state-sponsored attack surface from a sanctioned nation" to the risk register of a blockchain pilot program is not an abstract concern. It is a board governance issue. 

Jefferies pointed directly at this: banks "must rely on infrastructure that is still maturing." That sentence, in an institutional research note, carries specific weight — it signals that the infrastructure doesn't yet meet the bar that regulated entities are required to maintain.

Read Also: Best Meme Coins to Watch in May 2026

Conclusion

The KelpDAO hack didn't destroy Wall Street's interest in blockchain. But it did something potentially more damaging to the near-term timeline: it gave institutional risk managers a concrete, documented, billion-dollar case study for why they should slow down. 

Jefferies isn't predicting crypto's collapse — it's predicting a reassessment pause while the industry catches up to the adversarial conditions it's now operating in. The longer-term trajectory for stablecoins, tokenization, and institutional DeFi remains intact. 

What changed is the speed. The two back-to-back North Korea-linked heists made one thing clear: DeFi is not being tested by curious hackers anymore. It's being targeted by nation-states with quarterly extraction quotas. 

Until cross-chain infrastructure can demonstrate it can hold up under those conditions, Wall Street's confidence will stay cautious — and Jefferies just gave that caution a research-grade seal of approval.

Read Also: Gold in 2026: The Ultimate Macro-Geopolitics Hedge

FAQ

Did banks actually lose money in the KelpDAO hack?

No major TradFi bank lost funds directly. The losses hit DeFi-native protocols — KelpDAO, Aave, and connected liquidity pools — not traditional bank accounts or regulated custodians.

Which banks or institutions are most exposed to DeFi security risks?

Firms with active cross-chain tokenization plans — like those partnered with LayerZero's Zero blockchain, including DTCC, ICE, and Citadel Securities — face the most reputational and timeline exposure, even without direct financial losses.

What did Jefferies say about the long-term outlook for crypto?

Jefferies maintained a constructive long-term view, expecting stablecoins to keep growing in payments and cross-border transfers. The concern is near-term: tokenization rollout timelines may decelerate while security risks are reviewed.

Is crypto still safe for institutional investment after these hacks?

Bitcoin and major Layer 1 tokens were not affected. The risk is concentrated in cross-chain DeFi infrastructure — bridges, multi-chain lending protocols, and single-verifier setups — not the core blockchain networks themselves.

What would it take to restore institutional confidence in crypto?

A meaningful improvement in cross-chain bridge security standards — particularly mandatory multi-DVN verification, rate limiting on OFT transfers, and smart supply caps on lending collateral — combined with a period without major state-sponsored exploits.

Disclaimer:
The views expressed belong exclusively to the author and do not reflect the views of this platform. This platform and its affiliates disclaim any responsibility for the accuracy or suitability of the information provided. It is for informational purposes only and not intended as financial or investment advice.