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)
$945.06
$945.06$945.06
+3.13%
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

NZD/USD holds losses below 0.5750 ahead of China trade data

NZD/USD holds losses below 0.5750 ahead of China trade data

The post NZD/USD holds losses below 0.5750 ahead of China trade data appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. NZD/USD extends its losses for the second successive day
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2026/01/14 09:54
US SEC approves options tied to Grayscale Digital Large Cap Fund and Cboe Bitcoin US ETF Index

US SEC approves options tied to Grayscale Digital Large Cap Fund and Cboe Bitcoin US ETF Index

PANews reported on September 18th that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced that, in addition to approving universal listing standards for commodity-based trust units , the SEC has also approved the listing and trading of the Grayscale Digital Large Cap Fund, which holds spot digital assets based on the CoinDesk 5 index. The SEC also approved the listing and trading of PM-settled options on the Cboe Bitcoin US ETF Index and the Mini-Cboe Bitcoin US ETF Index, with expiration dates including third Fridays, non-standard expiration dates, and quarterly index expiration dates.
Share
PANews2025/09/18 07:18
SUI Price Eyes Breakout, Targets $11 Says Analyst

SUI Price Eyes Breakout, Targets $11 Says Analyst

The post SUI Price Eyes Breakout, Targets $11 Says Analyst appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. SUI price shows a technical setup for a macro breakout with analyst Dan Gambardello targeting $10-$11 levels. Recent partnership with Google’s Agentic Payments Protocol adds fundamental support to the technical analysis as SUI moves closer to potential breakout levels. SUI Price Analysis Points to $10-$11 Breakout Target Dan Gambardello has identified a clear ascending triangle formation on SUI price daily chart with upside targets around $10.79. The analyst simplified this target range to $10-$11 for practical trading purposes. The pattern shows sustained higher lows meeting resistance at current levels before a potential breakout. VanEck maintains more aggressive SUI crypto targets ranging from $13-$25 according to Gambardello’s research. SUI Price Analysis | Source: Dan Gambardello, X The $10 level is a more conservative higher high area for the current cycle. Midterm targets point to $7.50 in the 1.618 Fibonacci extension zone before longer-term objectives. The monthly RSI shows extreme compression that Gambardello describes as “screaming for a macro breakout to the upside.” This momentum oscillator behavior typically precedes major price movements in the crypto market. SUI crypto risk model currently sits at 51 and matches pre-bull market levels seen in coins like Ethereum. Gambardello compared this to Ethereum’s December 2020 reading of 51 before its major breakout. The March 2017 Ethereum reading of 53 preceded that cycle’s parabolic move. The analyst also noted that SUI price trades near the same levels from almost a year ago in November 2024. Bollinger Bands Signal Historic Compression CryptoBullet has identified the tightest Bollinger Bands in SUI’s entire trading history on the weekly chart. The BBW indicator compression reached levels that were historically followed by major price movements. This setup mirrors conditions before SUI’s previous major rallies. Historical data shows SUI price delivered +253% gains between December 2023 and March 2024 following similar compression. SUI…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 11:32