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)
$626.89
$626.89$626.89
-4.81%
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

Marathon Digital BTC Transfers Highlight Miner Stress

Marathon Digital BTC Transfers Highlight Miner Stress

The post Marathon Digital BTC Transfers Highlight Miner Stress appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. In a tense week for crypto markets, marathon digital has drawn
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2026/02/06 15:16
This U.S. politician’s suspicious stock trade just returned over 200% in weeks

This U.S. politician’s suspicious stock trade just returned over 200% in weeks

The post This U.S. politician’s suspicious stock trade just returned over 200% in weeks appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. United States Representative Cloe Fields has seen his stake in Opendoor Technologies (NASDAQ: OPEN) stock return over 200% in just a matter of weeks. According to congressional trade filings, the lawmaker purchased a stake in the online real estate company on July 21, 2025, investing between $1,001 and $15,000. At the time, the stock was trading around $2 and had been largely stagnant for months. Receive Signals on US Congress Members’ Stock Trades Stocks Stay up-to-date on the trading activity of US Congress members. The signal triggers based on updates from the House disclosure reports, notifying you of their latest stock transactions. Enable signal The trade has since paid off, with Opendoor surging to $10, a gain of nearly 220% in under two months. By comparison, the broader S&P 500 index rose less than 5% during the same period. OPEN one-week stock price chart. Source: Finbold Assuming he invested a minimum of $1,001, the purchase would now be worth about $3,200, while a $15,000 stake would have grown to nearly $48,000, generating profits of roughly $2,200 and $33,000, respectively. OPEN’s stock rally Notably, Opendoor’s rally has been fueled by major corporate shifts and market speculation. For instance, in August, the company named former Shopify COO Kaz Nejatian as CEO, while co-founders Keith Rabois and Eric Wu rejoined the board, moves seen as a return to the company’s early innovative spirit.  Outgoing CEO Carrie Wheeler’s resignation and sale of millions in stock reinforced the sense of a new chapter. Beyond leadership changes, Opendoor’s surge has taken on meme-stock characteristics. In this case, retail investors piled in as shares climbed, while short sellers scrambled to cover, pushing prices higher.  However, the stock is still not without challenges, where its iBuying model is untested at scale, margins are thin, and debt tied to…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 04:02
Apollo secures $50 million in backing to launch new tokenized credit fund

Apollo secures $50 million in backing to launch new tokenized credit fund

PANews reported on September 18 that according to CoinDesk, the blockchain-based RWA institution Centrifuge and Plume jointly launched the "Anemoy Tokenized Apollo Diversified Credit Fund (ACRDX)", which received a $50 million anchor investment from Grove, a credit infrastructure protocol within the Sky ecosystem. The fund enables blockchain investors to participate in Apollo's diversified global credit strategy, covering direct corporate loans, asset-backed loans, and mismatched credit. ACRDX will be issued through Plume's Nest Credit Vault with the token code nACRDX, enabling institutional investors to participate in the strategy on-chain. Chronicle will serve as the oracle provider, and Wormhole will be responsible for cross-chain connections. After approval, Anemoy will serve as the fund's manager.
Share
PANews2025/09/18 10:26