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)
$630.38
$630.38$630.38
-4.28%
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

DBS, Franklin Templeton, and Ripple partner to launch trading and lending solutions powered by tokenized money market funds and more

DBS, Franklin Templeton, and Ripple partner to launch trading and lending solutions powered by tokenized money market funds and more

PANews reported on September 18 that according to Cointelegraph, DBS Bank, Franklin Templeton and Ripple have partnered to launch trading and lending solutions supported by tokenized money market funds and RLUSD stablecoins.
Share
PANews2025/09/18 10:04
The Manchester City Donnarumma Doubters Have Missed Something Huge

The Manchester City Donnarumma Doubters Have Missed Something Huge

The post The Manchester City Donnarumma Doubters Have Missed Something Huge appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. MANCHESTER, ENGLAND – SEPTEMBER 14: Gianluigi Donnarumma of Manchester City celebrates the second City goal during the Premier League match between Manchester City and Manchester United at Etihad Stadium on September 14, 2025 in Manchester, England. (Photo by Visionhaus/Getty Images) Visionhaus/Getty Images For a goalkeeper who’d played an influential role in the club’s first-ever Champions League triumph, it was strange to see Gianluigi Donnarumma so easily discarded. Soccer is a brutal game, but the sudden, drastic demotion of the Italian from Paris Saint-Germain’s lineup for the UEFA Super Cup clash against Tottenham Hotspur before he was sold to Manchester City was shockingly brutal. Coach Luis Enrique isn’t a man who minces his words, so he was blunt when asked about the decision on social media. “I am supported by my club and we are trying to find the best solution,” he told a news conference. “It is a difficult decision. I only have praise for Donnarumma. He is one of the very best goalkeepers out there and an even better man. “But we were looking for a different profile. It’s very difficult to take these types of decisions.” The last line has really stuck, especially since it became clear that Manchester City was Donnarumma’s next destination. Pep Guardiola, under whom the Italian will be playing this season, is known for brutally axing goalkeepers he didn’t feel fit his profile. The most notorious was Joe Hart, who was jettisoned many years ago for very similar reasons to Enrique. So how can it be that the Catalan coach is turning once again to a so-called old-school keeper? Well, the truth, as so often the case, is not quite that simple. As Italian soccer expert James Horncastle pointed out in The Athletic, Enrique’s focus on needing a “different profile” is overblown. Lucas Chevalier,…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 07:38
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