Gart_io (nprofile…qdca) reported:
- 404 attacks across 61 countries
- attacks rose 90% from 2024 to 2025
- 35 people killed
- 95 home invasions
- 88 kidnappings
https://gart.io/stats
The attacks have closely tracked the bitcoin price, and the drop at the end of that chart is a lag in the data, not a threat that has passed.
The target is not an exchange account or a hacked wallet, it’s someone’s home.
Once a name and a home address are tied to a Bitcoin holding, that link does not expire.
That is why expanding the amount of identity and transaction data HMRC can obtain deserves scrutiny.
Tax enforcement should not create the data trail that leads someone to your home.
My latest in Forbes:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2026/10/08/hmrcs-proposed-crypto-powers-could-increase-physical-security-risks/
More reporting and background:
https://pressfiles.media/archive/articles/hmrcs-proposed-crypto-powers-could-increase-physical-security-risks/
quotingHMRC wants more power over financial data. The problem is that Bitcoin is not a bank account.
nevent1q…gsyg
Once names, home addresses and tax IDs are linked to a Bitcoin address, that information can stay connected to a public ledger indefinitely.
Europe is already seeing the consequences when crypto holders’ identities and holdings are exposed.
France saw 19 verified physical attacks on crypto holders in 2025. A French tax official was charged after using government software to look up crypto investors' details and passing data to criminals.
I spoke to HM Revenue & Customs, Recap, BULL BITCOIN and Knightbridge Tax about what the UK and EU rules could mean for privacy, self-custody and physical security.
Tax enforcement should not create a target list.
My latest for Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital-assets/2026/10/08/hmrcs-proposed-crypto-powers-could-increase-physical-security-risks/