SwissBorg Referral Code

The company behaved well after a serious incident. It is worth understanding exactly what that does and does not tell you about your money.

On 8 September 2025, roughly 193,000 SOL — around $41 million — was drained from SwissBorg's Solana Earn product.

The failure was not in SwissBorg's own systems. Attackers exploited an API vulnerability at Kiln, the staking partner SwissBorg used to connect its app to Solana's staking network, manipulating API requests to siphon tokens from linked accounts. The incident touched about 1% of platform users and around 2% of assets under management. SwissBorg worked with blockchain investigators, white-hat researchers, Fireblocks and the Solana Foundation on recovery, and committed to covering the shortfall so that affected users would not take a loss.

That is genuinely good conduct and this page says so plainly. Many platforms in this category have done considerably worse — our 3Commas page describes a company that publicly blamed its own users before confirming a breach. SwissBorg acknowledged the incident quickly, identified the cause, and made users whole. Credit where it is due.

And now the part that matters more, because it is the part nobody draws out.

A voluntary reimbursement is a corporate decision, not an entitlement. It created no enforceable right. There is no scheme, no statutory backstop, no insurer standing behind the next incident. What happened was that a company chose to absorb a loss — and the reason it could choose that is contained in the numbers: the incident was about 2% of assets under management.

A firm can absorb 2%. Nothing in this outcome tells you what happens at 40%. That is the whole point, and it is why a well-handled small incident must not be read as protection. The scenario worth pricing is not the one that already resolved well; it is the larger one that has not happened yet, where absorbing the loss would mean the company failing instead. In that scenario a customer has whatever the client agreement gives them, which in this category is normally nothing of the kind. Our YouHodler page sets out where that leaves you: an insolvency queue and a recovery percentage years later.

The second lesson, and it is a new one for this project: your risk surface includes your platform's suppliers.

SwissBorg did nothing wrong at the code level here. The vulnerability was in a partner's API — a company most users had never heard of and had no way to evaluate. No disclosure document lists the third parties a platform depends on, yet in this case that dependency is exactly what determined the outcome. Our 3Commas page in batch 77 shows the same structure from the other direction: there, users granted API access to a third party; here, the platform did. Either way, an API relationship is a trust relationship, and it is invisible from the outside.

The practical consequence is not "avoid platforms with partners", which would be impossible. It is: treat yield and staking products as carrying more integration risk than plain holding, because they necessarily involve more moving parts and more external systems. The Earn product was hit; simple custody was not.

On the referral. SwissBorg's scheme pays a "rewards ticket" worth somewhere between €1 and €100. That is a 100-fold range, and this project's rule for ranged rewards has been correct every time it has been tested: assume the floor. Distributions of this shape are weighted heavily toward the bottom because the ceiling could not be funded otherwise — the same arithmetic our Trade Republic page applies to "free stock worth €10 to €200". Treat it as a €1 offer that might pleasantly surprise you, and you will not be disappointed.