Despite layers of scrutiny, GMX’s V1 GLP pool was hacked for over $40 million in a brazen exploit. With leverage functions now frozen, traders are left wondering: How did audited contracts crack? And what does this mean for DeFi’s perpetual…Despite layers of scrutiny, GMX’s V1 GLP pool was hacked for over $40 million in a brazen exploit. With leverage functions now frozen, traders are left wondering: How did audited contracts crack? And what does this mean for DeFi’s perpetual…

Crypto hackers lift $42m from GMX’s Arbitrum liquidity pool in broad daylight

2025/07/10 02:53
Okuma süresi: 3 dk
Bu içerikle ilgili geri bildirim veya endişeleriniz için lütfen [email protected] üzerinden bizimle iletişime geçin.

Despite layers of scrutiny, GMX’s V1 GLP pool was hacked for over $40 million in a brazen exploit. With leverage functions now frozen, traders are left wondering: How did audited contracts crack? And what does this mean for DeFi’s perpetual trading future?

On July 9, on-chain perpetual and spot exchange GMX confirmed that its V1 GLP pool on Arbitrum had been exploited, with over $40 million worth of assorted tokens siphoned into an unknown wallet in a single transaction.

The attack, which appears to have manipulated the GLP vault mechanism, forced the protocol to halt trading and pause the minting and redeeming of GLP on both Arbitrum and Avalanche. GMX clarified that the breach was isolated to V1 and did not impact GMX V2, its token, or other associated markets.

While the GMX team has yet to disclose the exact exploit vector, the incident exposes the fragility of even audited smart contracts and raises urgent questions about the sustainability of decentralized leverage markets, where GMX has long been a dominant player.

How audits failed to stop the $40 million GMX exploit

The attacker’s path to draining $40 million from GMX’s V1 GLP pool was alarmingly straightforward yet devastatingly effective. According to blockchain analysts, the exploit involved manipulating the protocol’s leverage mechanism to mint excessive GLP tokens without proper collateral.

Once the attacker artificially inflated their position, they redeemed the fraudulently minted GLP for underlying assets, leaving the pool short of over $40 million in a matter of blocks.

The funds didn’t remain idle for long. According to Cyvers and Lookonchain, the attacker used a malicious contract funded through Tornado Cash to obscure the origin of the exploit. Roughly $9.6 million of the estimated $42 million haul was bridged from Arbitrum to Ethereum using Circle’s Cross-Chain Transfer Protocol, with portions swiftly converted to DAI.

Assets drained included ETH, USDC, fsGLP, DAI, UNI, FRAX, USDT, WETH, and LINK, making this a multi-asset strike spanning both native and synthetic tokens.

Before the hack, GMX’s V1 contracts were reviewed by top auditing firms. Quantstamp’s pre-deployment audit assessed core risks like reentrancy and access controls, while ABDK Consulting conducted additional stress tests. Yet neither audit flagged the specific leverage manipulation vector that enabled this exploit.

The oversight highlights a recurring blind spot in DeFi security: audits tend to focus on general vulnerabilities but often miss protocol-specific logic flaws. Ironically, GMX had proactive safeguards in place, including a $5 million bug bounty program and active monitoring by firms such as Guardian Audits.

This exploit doesn’t just undermine GMX, it casts doubt on the audit-driven security paradigm as a whole. If a protocol as mature and battle-tested as GMX can lose $40 million to a logic flaw, the implications for less scrutinized projects are deeply concerning.

Meanwhile, GMX’s on-chain appeal to the hacker, offering a 10% bounty for the return of funds, underscores DeFi’s harsh reality: recovery efforts often rely on negotiating with attackers.

Sorumluluk Reddi: Bu sitede yeniden yayınlanan makaleler, halka açık platformlardan alınmıştır ve yalnızca bilgilendirme amaçlıdır. MEXC'nin görüşlerini yansıtmayabilir. Tüm hakları telif sahiplerine aittir. Herhangi bir içeriğin üçüncü taraf haklarını ihlal ettiğini düşünüyorsanız, kaldırılması için lütfen [email protected] ile iletişime geçin. MEXC, içeriğin doğruluğu, eksiksizliği veya güncelliği konusunda hiçbir garanti vermez ve sağlanan bilgilere dayalı olarak alınan herhangi bir eylemden sorumlu değildir. İçerik, finansal, yasal veya diğer profesyonel tavsiye niteliğinde değildir ve MEXC tarafından bir tavsiye veya onay olarak değerlendirilmemelidir.

Ayrıca Şunları da Beğenebilirsiniz

Is Putnam Global Technology A (PGTAX) a strong mutual fund pick right now?

Is Putnam Global Technology A (PGTAX) a strong mutual fund pick right now?

The post Is Putnam Global Technology A (PGTAX) a strong mutual fund pick right now? appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. On the lookout for a Sector – Tech fund? Starting with Putnam Global Technology A (PGTAX – Free Report) should not be a possibility at this time. PGTAX possesses a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank of 4 (Sell), which is based on various forecasting factors like size, cost, and past performance. Objective We note that PGTAX is a Sector – Tech option, and this area is loaded with many options. Found in a wide number of industries such as semiconductors, software, internet, and networking, tech companies are everywhere. Thus, Sector – Tech mutual funds that invest in technology let investors own a stake in a notoriously volatile sector, but with a much more diversified approach. History of fund/manager Putnam Funds is based in Canton, MA, and is the manager of PGTAX. The Putnam Global Technology A made its debut in January of 2009 and PGTAX has managed to accumulate roughly $650.01 million in assets, as of the most recently available information. The fund is currently managed by Di Yao who has been in charge of the fund since December of 2012. Performance Obviously, what investors are looking for in these funds is strong performance relative to their peers. PGTAX has a 5-year annualized total return of 14.46%, and is in the middle third among its category peers. But if you are looking for a shorter time frame, it is also worth looking at its 3-year annualized total return of 27.02%, which places it in the middle third during this time-frame. It is important to note that the product’s returns may not reflect all its expenses. Any fees not reflected would lower the returns. Total returns do not reflect the fund’s [%] sale charge. If sales charges were included, total returns would have been lower. When looking at a fund’s performance, it…
Paylaş
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 04:05
UNI Price Prediction: Testing $4.17 Upper Band Resistance, Targets $4.50 by April 2026

UNI Price Prediction: Testing $4.17 Upper Band Resistance, Targets $4.50 by April 2026

Uniswap trades at $3.88 with neutral RSI at 51.98. Technical analysis suggests potential breakout to $4.17 upper Bollinger Band, with bullish targets reaching $
Paylaş
BlockChain News2026/03/12 17:21
Speed, Cost, and Intelligence: How Kie.ai’s Gemini 3 Flash API Balances Performance and Budget for Developers

Speed, Cost, and Intelligence: How Kie.ai’s Gemini 3 Flash API Balances Performance and Budget for Developers

Integrating AI into applications is a balancing act between performance, cost, and intelligence. Traditionally, high-performance AI models come with steep costs
Paylaş
Techbullion2026/03/12 16:55