11–20 of 105 posts
If there's every a use for provably correct programs, it should be in crypto.
I guess this is helpful with some classes of bugs. But I'm not sure it would with most. For example it is unclear if it would have caught this problem since (from the vague description!) it appears it would have needed some economic modelling to catch.
This time it's one of Solana's largest DeFi protocols. Are these guys asleep at the wheel? I wonder if these hacks can ever be fully prevented.
the people that don't architect their systems for oracle manipulations?
the way people talk around here reminds me of people in the 90s ‘that dun undastand dem puters with their viruses”, interestingly the folly and new problems presented by computers never went away, consumer and developer behavior improved
https://twitter.com/joshua_j_lim/status/1579987648546246658?... is the source overview.
The software all worked as expected, and it's difficult to see exactly which step you'd go "no, the person shouldn't have done that".
Arguably the fault is with the loan protocols that valued collateral at the instant spot price rather than some kind of time-averaged price.
Is this a "hack", or a legitimate financial transaction? Nothing above looks illegal. In regulated markets, if something went from $0.03 to $0.91 in a short space of time, trading would be shut down. Nobody would sell you a loan on something that had just had a giant change in price. But the crypto sector doesn't want exchange regulation, so they don't have the "circuit breakers" that, say, the CBOE does.
Web3isgoinggreat[1] tracks total losses in the cryptocurrency sector. Their total counter just advanced to $11 billion.
If there's every a use for provably correct programs, it should be in crypto.
NB: This article is about the $115 million Mango Markets hack of a few days ago, not about the $127 million exploit of Binance's blockchain from last week or the $160 million Wintermute hack from last month or the $1.2 billion-with-a-'b' Acala hack from the month before, or...
"According to Lim, the hacker funded the main account (account A) and offered 483mm units of $MNGO perps on the order book. The attacker then funded a second account (account B) with 5mm $USDC collateral. Then, he/she used the funds to buy the 483mm units of $MNGO perps (at a price of $0.0382 per unit). The perpetrator’s actions made $MNGO’s spot market price, reaching as high as $0.91. $MNGO/USD price of $0.91 per u…