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.

Market Opportunity
Binance Coin Logo
Binance Coin Price(BNB)
$849.68
$849.68$849.68
-0.50%
USD
Binance Coin (BNB) Live Price Chart
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

Fundstrat’s Internal Report Contradicts CIO Tom Lee’s Bold Crypto Forecasts

Fundstrat’s Internal Report Contradicts CIO Tom Lee’s Bold Crypto Forecasts

The post Fundstrat’s Internal Report Contradicts CIO Tom Lee’s Bold Crypto Forecasts appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Key Points: Fundstrat internal report
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/12/21 13:19
SEC Backs Nasdaq, CBOE, NYSE Push to Simplify Crypto ETF Rules

SEC Backs Nasdaq, CBOE, NYSE Push to Simplify Crypto ETF Rules

The US SEC on Wednesday approved new listing rules for major exchanges, paving the way for a surge of crypto spot exchange-traded funds. On Wednesday, the regulator voted to let Nasdaq, Cboe BZX and NYSE Arca adopt generic listing standards for commodity-based trust shares. The decision clears the final hurdle for asset managers seeking to launch spot ETFs tied to cryptocurrencies beyond Bitcoin and Ether. In July, the SEC outlined how exchanges could bring new products to market under the framework. Asset managers and exchanges must now meet specific criteria, but will no longer need to undergo drawn-out case-by-case reviews. Solana And XRP Funds Seen to Be First In Line Under the new system, the time from filing to launch can shrink to as little as 75 days, compared with up to 240 days or more under the old rules. “This is the crypto ETP framework we’ve been waiting for,” Bloomberg research analyst James Seyffart said on X, predicting a wave of new products in the coming months. The first filings likely to benefit are those tracking Solana and XRP, both of which have sat in limbo for more than a year. SEC Chair Paul Atkins said the approval reflects a commitment to reduce barriers and foster innovation while maintaining investor protections. The move comes under the administration of President Donald Trump, which has signaled strong support for digital assets after years of hesitation during the Biden era. New Standards Replace Lengthy Reviews And Repeated Denials Until now, the commission reviewed each application separately, requiring one filing from the exchange and another from the asset manager. This dual process often dragged on for months and led to repeated denials. Even Bitcoin spot ETFs, finally approved in Jan. 2024, arrived only after years of resistance and a legal battle with Grayscale. According to Bloomberg ETF analyst Eric Balchunas, the streamlined rules could apply to any cryptocurrency with at least six months of futures trading on the Coinbase Derivatives Exchange. That means more than a dozen tokens may now qualify for listing, potentially unleashing a new wave of altcoin ETFs. SEC Clears Grayscale Large Cap Fund Tracking CoinDesk 5 Index The SEC also approved the Grayscale Digital Large Cap Fund, which tracks the CoinDesk 5 Index, including Bitcoin, Ether, XRP, Solana and Cardano. Alongside this, it cleared the launch of options linked to the Cboe Bitcoin US ETF Index and its mini contract, broadening the set of crypto-linked derivatives on regulated US markets. Analysts say the shift shows how far US policy has moved. Where once regulators resisted digital assets, the latest changes show a growing willingness to bring them into the mainstream financial system under established safeguards
Share
CryptoNews2025/09/18 12:40
Bank of Canada cuts rate to 2.5% as tariffs and weak hiring hit economy

Bank of Canada cuts rate to 2.5% as tariffs and weak hiring hit economy

The Bank of Canada lowered its overnight rate to 2.5% on Wednesday, responding to mounting economic damage from US tariffs and a slowdown in hiring. The quarter-point cut was the first since March and met predictions from markets and economists. Governor Tiff Macklem, speaking in Ottawa, said the decision was unanimous. “With a weaker economy […]
Share
Cryptopolitan2025/09/17 23:09