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 service@support.mexc.com 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

Campaign For A Progressive Income Tax In Colorado Faces Setback

Campaign For A Progressive Income Tax In Colorado Faces Setback

The post Campaign For A Progressive Income Tax In Colorado Faces Setback appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Campaign to replace Colorado’s flat income tax with progressive rate structure runs into stumbling block. getty On June 22, 1987, Colorado became the first state in the nation to move from a progressive income tax code to a flat rate when then-Governor Roy Romer (D) signed House Bill 1331 into law. Now, nearly four decades later, A ballot measure campaign dubbed “Protect Colorado’s Future” (PCF) is seeking to move the state back to a progressive income tax system. “A coalition led by the Bell Policy Center is pushing the proposal, which is estimated to lower taxes for any person or company making less than $500,000 a year and raise them for those making more,” noted Ed Sealover, vice president of the Colorado Chamber of Commerce, of the effort to put a graduated income tax initiative on the 2026 ballot. “The plan’s method of calculating taxes is complex, with businesses and individuals paying different rates on different portions of income, such as the first $100,000, the amount between $100,000 and $500,000, the amount between $500,000 and $750,000, etc. But Bell estimated it will create an effective tax rate between 4.2% and 4.4% for those earning $500,000 or less and effective rates from 4.9% to 9.2% for those making more, with the highest rate reserved for businesses and individuals generating $10 million or more.” “Colorado is at a turning point,” said Bell Policy Center president and CEO Chris deGruy Kennedy at the May launch of the PCF coalition’s campaign for a progressive income tax. “For more than three decades, an upside-down tax code has hurt Colorado’s schools, health care, childcare and the environment. We’ve made the wealthy even wealthier while everyone else struggles to keep up.” However, Kennedy and other members of the PCF coalition recently encountered procedural hurdles that they must…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/10/25 00:32
The Adoption of Web3 in Europe: Current Status, Opportunities, and Challenges

The Adoption of Web3 in Europe: Current Status, Opportunities, and Challenges

How decentralization technologies are advancing in the Old Continent.
Share
The Cryptonomist2025/12/06 15:00
Why This New Trending Meme Coin Is Being Dubbed The New PEPE After Record Presale

Why This New Trending Meme Coin Is Being Dubbed The New PEPE After Record Presale

The post Why This New Trending Meme Coin Is Being Dubbed The New PEPE After Record Presale appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Crypto News 17 September 2025 | 20:13 The meme coin market is heating up once again as traders look for the next breakout token. While Shiba Inu (SHIB) continues to build its ecosystem and PEPE holds onto its viral roots, a new contender, Layer Brett (LBRETT), is gaining attention after raising more than $3.7 million in its presale. With a live staking system, fast-growing community, and real tech backing, some analysts are already calling it “the next PEPE.” Here’s the latest on the Shiba Inu price forecast, what’s going on with PEPE, and why Layer Brett is drawing in new investors fast. Shiba Inu price forecast: Ecosystem builds, but retail looks elsewhere Shiba Inu (SHIB) continues to develop its broader ecosystem with Shibarium, the project’s Layer 2 network built to improve speed and lower gas fees. While the community remains strong, the price hasn’t followed suit lately. SHIB is currently trading around $0.00001298, and while that’s a decent jump from its earlier lows, it still falls short of triggering any major excitement across the market. The project includes additional tokens like BONE and LEASH, and also has ongoing initiatives in DeFi and NFTs. However, even with all this development, many investors feel the hype that once surrounded SHIB has shifted elsewhere, particularly toward newer, more dynamic meme coins offering better entry points and incentives. PEPE: Can it rebound or is the momentum gone? PEPE saw a parabolic rise during the last meme coin surge, catching fire on social media and delivering massive short-term gains for early adopters. However, like most meme tokens driven largely by hype, it has since cooled off. PEPE is currently trading around $0.00001076, down significantly from its peak. While the token still enjoys a loyal community, analysts believe its best days may be behind it unless…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 02:50