If I recall correctly, in the early years of some South Korea exchanges, they are not mandated to have funds at their arsenals or at least covered what have been lost in a instance of hacked. But the South Korean regulators implemented a very strict rule moving forward to have funds bye their exchanges so that they can cover everything.

So this is what really happened here, Bitget have their reserves for this hack. Although again, it's a huge amount of money that they might have to keep if they only spend more money in protecting their infrastructure and somewhat stop this hack.

It doesn't need a government ruling just for any exchange to cover what potential loss they can make. But that's a good step there and after that, exchanges have followed the same ruling for their own implementation to give more security and assurance for their users if something bad happens.

There can be less damage for the hack but each of these exchanges should anticipate that they're always targeted and this incident is likely to happen at any given time. So, being prepared for the reserves is mostly for this instance.

Based on what I have seen, considering the recent apps and scams that are ongoing with some specific targeted wallets and centralized exchanges, we should avoid using this non-custodial wallet, and this is the first security measure we must ensure is in place.

After doing the first one, secondly, we must embrace multiple security measures to prevent hackers from getting access to our wallet and making a transaction from it; this may come with the idea of using a multi-sig wallet or passphrase as an additional security measure for any wallet we are using under non-custodial storage.