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)
$933.65
$933.65$933.65
-0.43%
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 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

Fed forecasts only one rate cut in 2026, a more conservative outlook than expected

Fed forecasts only one rate cut in 2026, a more conservative outlook than expected

The post Fed forecasts only one rate cut in 2026, a more conservative outlook than expected appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell talks to reporters following the regular Federal Open Market Committee meetings at the Fed on July 30, 2025 in Washington, DC. Chip Somodevilla | Getty Images The Federal Reserve is projecting only one rate cut in 2026, fewer than expected, according to its median projection. The central bank’s so-called dot plot, which shows 19 individual members’ expectations anonymously, indicated a median estimate of 3.4% for the federal funds rate at the end of 2026. That compares to a median estimate of 3.6% for the end of this year following two expected cuts on top of Wednesday’s reduction. A single quarter-point reduction next year is significantly more conservative than current market pricing. Traders are currently pricing in at two to three more rate cuts next year, according to the CME Group’s FedWatch tool, updated shortly after the decision. The gauge uses prices on 30-day fed funds futures contracts to determine market-implied odds for rate moves. Here are the Fed’s latest targets from 19 FOMC members, both voters and nonvoters: Zoom In IconArrows pointing outwards The forecasts, however, showed a large difference of opinion with two voting members seeing as many as four cuts. Three officials penciled in three rate reductions next year. “Next year’s dot plot is a mosaic of different perspectives and is an accurate reflection of a confusing economic outlook, muddied by labor supply shifts, data measurement concerns, and government policy upheaval and uncertainty,” said Seema Shah, chief global strategist at Principal Asset Management. The central bank has two policy meetings left for the year, one in October and one in December. Economic projections from the Fed saw slightly faster economic growth in 2026 than was projected in June, while the outlook for inflation was updated modestly higher for next year. There’s a lot of uncertainty…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 02:59
Pump.fun CEO to Call Low-Cap Gem to Test New ‘Callouts’ Feature — Is a 100x Incoming?

Pump.fun CEO to Call Low-Cap Gem to Test New ‘Callouts’ Feature — Is a 100x Incoming?

Pump.fun has rolled out a new social feature that is already stirring debate across Solana’s meme coin scene, after founder Alon Cohen said he would personally
Share
CryptoNews2026/01/16 06:26
Iran’s Crypto Use Reaches $7.8 Billion Amid Protests

Iran’s Crypto Use Reaches $7.8 Billion Amid Protests

Iran's crypto usage hit $7.8 billion in 2025, fueled by protests and economic instability, says Chainalysis.
Share
bitcoininfonews2026/01/16 05:51