← News·Markets · Digital AssetsMarkets

Revolut: no direct contact after competing claimants post $3 million Monero and 10,000 Bitcoin ransom demands

Two competing parties have separately claimed to have breached Revolut and posted public ransom demands. One seeks $3 million in Monero. The other demands 10,000 Bitcoin. Revolut says neither claimant has established…

NM
NewsMV Markets Desk
3 min read
17 September 2026Markets desk
Share this dispatch

Key takeaways

  • Two competing parties have separately claimed to have breached Revolut, with one demanding $3 million in Monero and the other demanding 10,000 Bitcoin.
  • Revolut says neither claimant has established any direct contact, so only the absence of contact has been disclosed.
  • Both parties issued their ransom demands through public channels rather than opening a private negotiating channel, which is atypical for extortion.
  • The two demanded assets sit on opposite ends of the traceability spectrum, with Monero obscuring transaction data by default and Bitcoin creating a traceable on-chain event.
  • The differing assets, public demands, and lack of direct contact make both breach claims harder to evaluate or verify.

Two competing parties have separately claimed to have breached Revolut and posted public ransom demands. One seeks $3 million in Monero. The other demands 10,000 Bitcoin. Revolut says neither claimant has established any direct contact.

The competing-claimants structure is the central oddity. Extortion demands are typically paired with private communication to open a negotiating channel. Here, both parties chose public channels, and Revolut says it has heard nothing directly from either, leaving both claims in a state where only the absence of contact has been disclosed.

From a digital-asset positioning lens, the two demands sit on opposite ends of the traceability spectrum. Monero is built around transaction opacity, obscuring transaction data by default. Bitcoin runs on a public blockchain, and a 10,000-Bitcoin payment would create a traceable on-chain event. That the two claimants demanded different assets, in public, without direct contact, makes both claims harder to evaluate.

What to watch: any direct communication from either claimant to Revolut, or a regulatory filing that would establish whether the underlying breach claims have been verified.

Related reading

Categorycrypto

Filed via cointelegraph.com

Keep reading

More from the markets desk

Frequently asked

How much are the ransom demands against Revolut?

One claimant is demanding $3 million in Monero, while a separate claimant is demanding 10,000 Bitcoin.

Has Revolut been contacted directly by the claimants?

No; Revolut says neither claimant has established any direct contact, and only the absence of contact has been disclosed.

Why is the structure of these claims considered unusual?

Extortion demands are typically paired with private communication to open a negotiating channel, but here both parties used public channels and Revolut has heard nothing directly from either.

Why does the choice between Monero and Bitcoin matter?

Monero is built around transaction opacity and obscures data by default, while a 10,000-Bitcoin payment on Bitcoin's public blockchain would create a traceable on-chain event.

What should observers watch next?

Any direct communication from either claimant to Revolut, or a regulatory filing that would establish whether the underlying breach claims have been verified.