What I'm really curious about, and have been for some time, is how those underwriters and insurers in Japan have fared now that those hacked exchanges should have already made all their claims. Part of the requirements IIRC for getting a licence was that they had to have insurance from one of the approved insurers. Japan was the first instance where crypto exchanges funds were insured too - be interesting to see how that's turned out. It's one thing to tell customers their funds are insured. Quite another to get them those funds back from insurance.
The biggest hack by far was Coincheck. I'm unaware of any other Japanese exchange getting hacked post Gox. It's a largely Korean tradition.
Coincheck were not regulated and all of their stolen XEM was in a hot wallet. None of it was cold. None of it was multisig despite XEM having it baked in to the protocol. One Trezor would've prevented everything.
Because of that even if they were insured no one would ever have paid out. Most of it was their own money and so there wasn't a huge proportion to pay back to actual customers.
I dunno about Japan, but the insured places in the US only cover USD balances like any other bank. The crypto insured places like Coinbase only cover the 2% in hot wallets for hacks at their end. The 98% cold stuff is not insured.
Interested to see what the deal is with this policy. I wouldn't want to put it to the test. An insurer's first job is to find a way not to pay.
