Let’s further consider the logical possibilities of Venus Protocol being attacked: 1) Security experts say that some big investors were phished. Conventional wisdom suggests that they could just withdraw funds directly with the private key. How could there be a flash loan? Most likely, the hacker obtained updateDelegate authorization through social engineering, gaining access to the account of a large investor, but without immediate liquidity to withdraw. In layman's terms, the hacker obtained the authority, but the large investor only had collateral, not the borrowed funds. The hacker had to find a way to obtain the collateral of the large investor. 2) Is it that the individual phishing incidents involving the major investor have nothing to do with the Venus contract? As mentioned earlier, if the hacker discovered that the major investor's account had no liquidity, their efforts would normally be in vain. But why was it possible to withdraw collateral through a simple flash loan attack? The answer lies in the Venus contract mechanism. The hacker may have used flash loans and a series of vToken cross-platform exchange rate differences to help the major investor repay the collateral and even withdraw some extra. Simply put, it is true that the collateral of the big investors was stolen, but it is very likely that it will become a bad debt of the Venus contract platform, unless the big investors are stupid enough to pay back the platform. 3) While other users' funds are temporarily safe, the Venus platform faces significant liability concerns. While the attack was triggered by a large investor being phished by a social engineering scheme, the platform ultimately profited. The $30 million stolen is likely to become bad debt for the Venus platform, and coupled with the temporary panic and bank run, the impact could be devastating for Venus. But the greater impact is that this incident has brought back horrific memories of Venus's habitual attacks. The XVS price manipulation incident and its use as a tool for money laundering via BNB's cross-chain bridge are all examples of damage caused by fundamental flaws in Venus's security engineering. As the largest lending protocol on BSC, this is unacceptable. Note: The above is based on reasonable speculation based on the currently disclosed information. The details will be determined based on actual disclosed details.Let’s further consider the logical possibilities of Venus Protocol being attacked: 1) Security experts say that some big investors were phished. Conventional wisdom suggests that they could just withdraw funds directly with the private key. How could there be a flash loan? Most likely, the hacker obtained updateDelegate authorization through social engineering, gaining access to the account of a large investor, but without immediate liquidity to withdraw. In layman's terms, the hacker obtained the authority, but the large investor only had collateral, not the borrowed funds. The hacker had to find a way to obtain the collateral of the large investor. 2) Is it that the individual phishing incidents involving the major investor have nothing to do with the Venus contract? As mentioned earlier, if the hacker discovered that the major investor's account had no liquidity, their efforts would normally be in vain. But why was it possible to withdraw collateral through a simple flash loan attack? The answer lies in the Venus contract mechanism. The hacker may have used flash loans and a series of vToken cross-platform exchange rate differences to help the major investor repay the collateral and even withdraw some extra. Simply put, it is true that the collateral of the big investors was stolen, but it is very likely that it will become a bad debt of the Venus contract platform, unless the big investors are stupid enough to pay back the platform. 3) While other users' funds are temporarily safe, the Venus platform faces significant liability concerns. While the attack was triggered by a large investor being phished by a social engineering scheme, the platform ultimately profited. The $30 million stolen is likely to become bad debt for the Venus platform, and coupled with the temporary panic and bank run, the impact could be devastating for Venus. But the greater impact is that this incident has brought back horrific memories of Venus's habitual attacks. The XVS price manipulation incident and its use as a tool for money laundering via BNB's cross-chain bridge are all examples of damage caused by fundamental flaws in Venus's security engineering. As the largest lending protocol on BSC, this is unacceptable. Note: The above is based on reasonable speculation based on the currently disclosed information. The details will be determined based on actual disclosed details.

Why is it always stolen? On the systemic flaws in Venus contract design

2025/09/03 13:00

Let’s further consider the logical possibilities of Venus Protocol being attacked:

1) Security experts say that some big investors were phished. Conventional wisdom suggests that they could just withdraw funds directly with the private key. How could there be a flash loan?

Most likely, the hacker obtained updateDelegate authorization through social engineering, gaining access to the account of a large investor, but without immediate liquidity to withdraw. In layman's terms, the hacker obtained the authority, but the large investor only had collateral, not the borrowed funds. The hacker had to find a way to obtain the collateral of the large investor.

2) Is it that the individual phishing incidents involving the major investor have nothing to do with the Venus contract? As mentioned earlier, if the hacker discovered that the major investor's account had no liquidity, their efforts would normally be in vain. But why was it possible to withdraw collateral through a simple flash loan attack? The answer lies in the Venus contract mechanism. The hacker may have used flash loans and a series of vToken cross-platform exchange rate differences to help the major investor repay the collateral and even withdraw some extra.

Simply put, it is true that the collateral of the big investors was stolen, but it is very likely that it will become a bad debt of the Venus contract platform, unless the big investors are stupid enough to pay back the platform.

3) While other users' funds are temporarily safe, the Venus platform faces significant liability concerns. While the attack was triggered by a large investor being phished by a social engineering scheme, the platform ultimately profited. The $30 million stolen is likely to become bad debt for the Venus platform, and coupled with the temporary panic and bank run, the impact could be devastating for Venus.

But the greater impact is that this incident has brought back horrific memories of Venus's habitual attacks. The XVS price manipulation incident and its use as a tool for money laundering via BNB's cross-chain bridge are all examples of damage caused by fundamental flaws in Venus's security engineering. As the largest lending protocol on BSC, this is unacceptable. Note: The above is based on reasonable speculation based on the currently disclosed information. The details will be determined based on actual disclosed details.

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact [email protected] for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

Hyperliquid Strategies Inc. announces a $30M stock buyback program

Hyperliquid Strategies Inc. announces a $30M stock buyback program

The post Hyperliquid Strategies Inc. announces a $30M stock buyback program appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Hyperliquid Strategies Inc., a digital asset treasury company, has announced that its board approved a stock buyback of up to $30 million of the Company’s outstanding common stock, par value $0.01 per share.  The stock repurchase program will be in place for up to 12 months. The company states that repurchases will be made from time to time in open market transactions at prevailing market prices, at management’s discretion. Hyperliquid cites providing investors with access to HYPE as the initiative According to Hyperliquid, the actual timing, number, and value of shares repurchased under the program will be determined by management at its discretion. It will also depend on several factors, including the market price of HSI’s common stock, general market and economic conditions, and applicable legal requirements. Company CEO David Schamis stated that the repurchase is aimed at enhancing shareholder value and increasing the exposure of each share to Hyperliquid’s ecosystem native token HYPE through capital operations.  David Schamis stated, “We are fully committed to maximizing shareholder value through disciplined execution of our treasury strategy. Our primary objective is providing investors with efficient access to HYPE, the native token of the dominant Hyperliquid eco-system. We will use our cash to increase our shareholders’ per-share exposure to HYPE in the most efficient way possible.” However, the company cannot guarantee the final number of shares repurchased, and the repurchase program may be extended, suspended, or terminated at any time at the company’s discretion without further notice. Additionally, Hyperliquid Strategies Inc. is the core of the Hyperliquid ecosystem. Hyperion DeFi recently announced the receipt of a Kinetiq airdrop and a partnership with Native Markets. The company reports assert that these changes should make HYPE tokens more valuable and easier to trade. The company has also taken steps to expand its holdings, purchasing an…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/12/09 04:23
Gold dips under $4,200 as rising yields and Fed jitters hit bullion

Gold dips under $4,200 as rising yields and Fed jitters hit bullion

The post Gold dips under $4,200 as rising yields and Fed jitters hit bullion appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Gold (XAU/USD) retreats on Monday as traders brace for the Federal Reserve (Fed) meeting, where the central bank is expected to deliver its third consecutive rate cut, ahead of 2026. At the time of writing, XAU/USD trades at $4,195, down 0.27%, after hitting a daily high of $4,219,. US Treasury yields pressure Gold; Fed decision and geopolitics drive outlook The rise of US Treasury yields is capping bullion’s advance, with sellers driving spot prices below $4,200. A Fed cut on Wednesday could pump Gold prices up, with the non-yielding metal tending to fare well in low-interest-rate environments, meaning that further upside is seen in the near term. The outcome of the meeting could set the tone for Gold’s direction, as a ‘hawkish cut’ could cap Gold’s advance. On the other hand, the lack of progress of a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine could underpin the yellow metal, which so far is poised to end the year with gains of close to 60%. On Tuesday, the US data docket will feature the ADP Employment Change 4-week average, alongside the Job Openings and Labor Turnover (JOLTS) report for September and October. Daily digest market movers: US Treasury yields, pressure Gold prices US Treasury yields are rising. The 10-year benchmark note rate is up nearly three basis points at 4.168%. US real yields, which correlate inversely with Gold prices, are also rising three bps to 1.908%, a headwind for bullion. The US Dollar Index (DXY), which tracks the American’s currency performance against other six, is up 0.11% at 99.09 Geopolitics continued to play its role with Gold prices as newswires revealed that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy met with European leaders in London, as Washington pressures Kyiv to agree to a proposed peace deal with Russia. Zelenskiy said that China is not interested…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/12/09 04:17