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

US Dollar Index (DXY) hovers near multi-week low ahead of US PCE data

US Dollar Index (DXY) hovers near multi-week low ahead of US PCE data

The post US Dollar Index (DXY) hovers near multi-week low ahead of US PCE data appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. The US Dollar Index (DXY), which tracks the Greenback against a basket of currencies, struggles to capitalize on the overnight bounce from its lowest level since late October and trades with a mild negative bias during the Asian session on Friday. The index is currently placed around the 99.00 mark, down less than 0.10% for the day, as traders now await the crucial US inflation data before placing fresh directional bets. The September US Personal Consumption Expenditure (PCE) Price Index will be published later today and will be scrutinized for more cues about the Federal Reserve’s (Fed) future rate-cut path. This, in turn, will play a key role in determining the next leg of a directional move for the Greenback. In the meantime, dovish US Federal Reserve (Fed) expectations overshadow Thursday’s upbeat US labor market reports and continue to act as a headwind for the buck. Recent comments from several Fed officials suggested that another interest rate cut in December is all but certain. The CME Group’s FedWatch Tool indicates an over 85% probability of a move next week. Furthermore, reports suggest that White House National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett is seen as the frontrunner to become the next Fed Chair and is expected to enact US President Donald Trump’s calls for lower rates, which, in turn, favors the USD bears. Nevertheless, the DXY remains on track to register losses for the second straight week, and the fundamental backdrop suggests that the path of least resistance for the index remains to the downside. Hence, any attempted recovery is more likely to get sold into and remain limited. US Dollar Price Last 7 Days The table below shows the percentage change of US Dollar (USD) against listed major currencies last 7 days. US Dollar was the strongest against the Swiss…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/12/05 13:43
SSP Stock Surges 11% On FY25 Earnings And European Rail Review

SSP Stock Surges 11% On FY25 Earnings And European Rail Review

The post SSP Stock Surges 11% On FY25 Earnings And European Rail Review appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. SSP Group stock rebounded strongly today. (Photo Illustration by Pavlo Gonchar/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images) SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images Shares in travel food retailer SSP Group rose sharply today after the company posted solid FY25 results, highlighting good growth in two of its four regional divisions, and a decision to review its under‑performing Continental European rail business. The food and beverage (F&B) company’s stock closed 11.3% up in London on the back of a revenue rise of 7.8% (at constant currency) to £3.6 billion ($4.8 billion) in the 12 months to September. Operating profit jumped by 12.7% to £223 million ($298 million). Under statutory IFRS reporting, however, operating profit fell 58% to £86 million, which SSP said in a statement “reflected £183 million of non‑underlying expenses and impairment charges.” The decision to review its rail business in Continental Europe—the biggest of the F&B giant’s four divisions by revenue at £1,205 million ($1,607 million)—was welcomed by the market, given its weak performance of 2% like-for-like (LFL) growth. A carrot was also dangled— a reward to shareholders arising from the July IPO of SSP’s Indian joint venture Travel Food Services (TFS) with K Hospitality, India’s largest privately held F&B company. SSP Group CEO Patrick Coveney said in a statement: “We acknowledge there is more to do to strengthen our operational performance, most notably in Continental Europe, where we have now reset our team, model, and balance sheet, and have a range of initiatives underway. In addition, we are launching a wide-ranging review of our rail business in Continental Europe. We are also considering options to realise value for our shareholders in line with the delivery of the TFS free float requirement.” SSP currently retains a 50.01% stake in TFS and said: “We believe that India’s market potential, combined with TFS’s attractive…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/12/05 13:37
What Advisors Should Know as the Market Matures

What Advisors Should Know as the Market Matures

The post What Advisors Should Know as the Market Matures appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. In today’s “Crypto for Advisors” newsletter, Gregory Mall from Lionsoul Global breaks down crypto yield, highlighting its maturity, along with its role in a portfolio. We look at why yield may ultimately become crypto’s most durable bridge to mainstream portfolios. Then, in “Ask an Expert,” Kevin Tam highlights key investments from the recent 13F filings, including the news that combined United Arab Emirates sovereign exposure hit $1.08 billion, making them the fourth-largest global holder. Yield in Digital Assets: What Advisors Should Know as the Market Matures For most of its history, crypto has been defined by directional bets: buy, hold, and hope the next cycle delivers. But a quieter transformation has been unfolding beneath the surface. As the digital asset ecosystem has matured, one of its most important and misunderstood developments has been the emergence of yield: systematic, programmatic, and increasingly institutional. The story begins with infrastructure. Bitcoin introduced self-custody and scarcity; Ethereum extended that foundation with smart contracts, turning blockchains into programmable platforms capable of running financial services. Over the past five years, this architecture has given rise to a parallel, transparent credit and trading ecosystem known as decentralized finance (DeFi). While still niche relative to traditional markets, DeFi has grown from under $1 million of total value locked in 2018 to well over $100 billion at peak (DefiLlama). Even after the 2022 downturn, activity has rebounded sharply. For advisors, this expansion matters because it has unlocked something crypto rarely offered in its early years: cash-flow-based returns, not reliant on speculation. But the complexity behind those yields and the risks beneath the surface require careful navigation. Where Crypto Yield Comes From Yield in digital assets does not come from a single source but from three broad categories of market activity. 1. Trading and liquidity provision Automated market makers (AMMs)…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/12/05 13:14