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
2 min read

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)
$598.44
$598.44$598.44
-2.59%
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 crypto.news@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

Ethereum Price Prediction: ETH Targets $10,000 In 2026 But Layer Brett Could Reach $1 From $0.0058

Ethereum Price Prediction: ETH Targets $10,000 In 2026 But Layer Brett Could Reach $1 From $0.0058

Ethereum price predictions are turning heads, with analysts suggesting ETH could climb to $10,000 by 2026 as institutional demand and network upgrades drive growth. While Ethereum remains a blue-chip asset, investors looking for sharper multiples are eyeing Layer Brett (LBRETT). Currently in presale at just $0.0058, the Ethereum Layer 2 meme coin is drawing huge [...] The post Ethereum Price Prediction: ETH Targets $10,000 In 2026 But Layer Brett Could Reach $1 From $0.0058 appeared first on Blockonomi.
Share
Blockonomi2025/09/17 23:45
Ray Data and Docling Tackle Enterprise AI’s Biggest Pain Point

Ray Data and Docling Tackle Enterprise AI’s Biggest Pain Point

The post Ray Data and Docling Tackle Enterprise AI’s Biggest Pain Point appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Zach Anderson Feb 27, 2026 16:58 New integration
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2026/02/28 12:33
3 Paradoxes of Altcoin Season in September

3 Paradoxes of Altcoin Season in September

The post 3 Paradoxes of Altcoin Season in September appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Analyses and data indicate that the crypto market is experiencing its most active altcoin season since early 2025, with many altcoins outperforming Bitcoin. However, behind this excitement lies a paradox. Most retail investors remain uneasy as their portfolios show little to no profit. This article outlines the main reasons behind this situation. Altcoin Market Cap Rises but Dominance Shrinks Sponsored TradingView data shows that the TOTAL3 market cap (excluding BTC and ETH) reached a new high of over $1.1 trillion in September. Yet the share of OTHERS (excluding the top 10) has declined since 2022, now standing at just 8%. OTHERS Dominance And TOTAL3 Capitalization. Source: TradingView. In past cycles, such as 2017 and 2021, TOTAL3 and OTHERS.D rose together. That trend reflected capital flowing not only into large-cap altcoins but also into mid-cap and low-cap ones. The current divergence shows that capital is concentrated in stablecoins and a handful of top-10 altcoins such as SOL, XRP, BNB, DOG, HYPE, and LINK. Smaller altcoins receive far less liquidity, making it hard for their prices to return to levels where investors previously bought. This creates a situation where only a few win while most face losses. Retail investors also tend to diversify across many coins instead of adding size to top altcoins. That explains why many portfolios remain stagnant despite a broader market rally. Sponsored “Position sizing is everything. Many people hold 25–30 tokens at once. A 100x on a token that makes up only 1% of your portfolio won’t meaningfully change your life. It’s better to make a few high-conviction bets than to overdiversify,” analyst The DeFi Investor said. Altcoin Index Surges but Investor Sentiment Remains Cautious The Altcoin Season Index from Blockchain Center now stands at 80 points. This indicates that over 80% of the top 50 altcoins outperformed…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 01:43