Boxmining v2

Category: Uncategorized

  • Is Solana (SOL) Dead After FTX Bankruptcy?

    Is Solana (SOL) Dead After FTX Bankruptcy?

    Over the past two years, Solana has risen to be one of the largest blockchains by both market cap and usage, rivalling that of Ethereum. This rapid growth was largely driven by Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF), former CEO of recently bankrupt exchange FTX, who was a huge proponent of the project. In light of the FTX contagion, Solana was hit hard, leaving investors to question the state of the ecosystem.

    In case you are out of the loop, we have covered the entire timeline of the FTX contagion in chronological order listed down below:

    How is Solana Affected by the FTX Collapse?

    Solana (SOL) Token Holdings of FTX

    According to an FTX balance sheet shared with investors, the exchange held $982 million in SOL. It is also reported by CoinDesk that the second largest holding of Alameda Research, the sister company of FTX, is SOL. It stands to reason that FTX and Alameda might have dumped their holdings to raise liquidity, though not confirmed.

    Since the beginning of FTX’s downfall, SOL has tanked -59% in price, putting it at -94% below its all-time high. It is also expected that many investors have exited their SOL position out of fear.

    Moreover, FTX and Alameda Research purchased 50.52 million SOL tokens from Solana Foundation and 7.56 million SOL from Solana Labs, representing nearly 11% of the total supply. On the bright side, most of these tokens are vested through a linear monthly unlock mechanism, which means FTX do not have them in custody yet. The last of these unlocks will occur by January 2028.

    Given FTX and Alameda are undergoing bankruptcy, their tokens will be frozen once unlocked, preventing further sell pressure. But it is likely that proceedings will involve liquidating SOL to repay FTX creditors.

    Massive TVL Decline in Solana’s DeFi Ecosystem

    Apart from SOL’s price, Solana’s DeFi ecosystem has also been severely impacted. Since the beginning of FTX’s downfall, more than $700 million have exited Solana’s ecosystem, leaving just a mere $285 million in total value locked (TVL) at the time of writing, according to DeFi Llama.

    A lot of this has to do with Project Serum, an order book based decentralized exchange (DEX) laying at the heart of Solana’s entire DeFi ecosystem, providing liquidity and pricing data to many other major DeFi protocols. Unfortunately, Serum was launched by SBF, and most of its liquidity comes from FTX and Alameda. Moreover, the recent FTX hack revealed that the private key of Serum’s program was compromised, suggesting FTX insiders were in control of them. As a result, Serum developers forked the program to separate from FTX and protect end-users.

    Depegged Wrapped Tokens on Solana

    Another critical issue is that wrapped tokens notably soBTC and soETH are depegged. This is because these wrapped assets are backed by collateral held in FTX, but because their liquidity dried up, no one knows if FTX still has the underlying assets. As a result, these wrapped tokens are no longer redeemable.

    This is very problematic, because almost all DeFi protocols have soBTC and soETH as collateral since it is accepted as the de facto BTC and ETH in Solana. But if underlying assets are completely invalid, then these wrapped tokens have no value, which could worsen the contagion.

    Will Solana Make a Comeback?

    It is important to remember that this collapse is from centralized players and not from decentralized protocols. The technology behind the Solana blockchain is not affected. Though Solana is experiencing big price declines, its community remains resilient and bullish as they continue to build despite market sentiment.

    Better Technology for Solana

    Recently, Coinbase Cloud has been helping with the network upgrade of Solana, implementing (1) Quick UDP Internet Connections (QUIC), (2) Stake-weighted Quality-of-Service (QoS), and (3) local fee markets.

    1. QUIC gives validators more control over incoming traffic. It will help prevent spammed transactions from overwhelming validators like in the April 2022 outage.
    2. Stake-weighted QoS ensures that validators can forwards transactions to slot leaders based on stake-weight, regardless of network conditions. Even if the slot leader is being spammed, other validators should be able to forward transactions to them. This QoS feature has been rolled out with QUIC.
    3. Local fee markets allow users to have their transactions included over others by adding a prioritization fee. This addition unlocks a new dimension in competing for transaction inclusion, whereas in the past, spamming was the only way to compete.

    Moreover, Google Cloud is running a block-producing validator on Solana, introducing Blockchain Node Engine to the blockchain next year. All of these features together will immensely increase the throughput capacity of the network.

    Improved Network Performance and Decentralization

    As a result of recent development, network performance has improved as average time to produce a block has decreased, increasing transactions per second. Moreover, active user number on Solana remains strong despite this year’s market downturn. As of October 2022, there are 11.5 million active accounts and 1.7 million active fee payers.

    Solana’s validator network is becoming more decentralized, ranking third on the Nakamoto Coefficient, a measurement for network decentralization. Furthermore, with FTX and Alameda expected to liquidate their SOL holdings, new buyers will come and help spread out the holding percentages, further increasing decentralization.

    Strong Developer Community

    In 2022, Solana has seen unprecedented developer activity across DeFi, DAOs, NFTs, GameFi, payments and mobile apps. Open source repos and developer activity on Solana surged this month, thanks to growing developer education resources and an easier onboarding experience. Additionally, DAO tooling and adoption has made it possible for large numbers of Solana projects to be managed on-chain.

    Solana also has a thriving NFT ecosystem. Even after the dip, it remains the second largest NFT ecosystem, according to CryptoSlam!. Solana NFTs are onboarding hundreds of thousands of users to the network, with over $3.6 billion in primary and secondary sales.

    According to sec3, a security research firm for Solana projects, thousands of developers are using, deploying, and auditing 1,000+ unique programs on Solana. Between the Phantom wallet, the NFT ecosystem, big partnerships with Instagram, and new use cases like StepN (move-to-earn), Solana continues to bring new users into the web3 space.

    Final Takeaway

    It is important to remember that Solana is NOT FTX. Even though Solana was heavily invested by FTX, its technology and decentralized protocol were never affected. The huge price declines we are currently seeing is most likely due to mass panic sells and forced liquidations of the FTX Group as well other ventures. As long as Solana continues to build, fresh healthy money will come flowing in the ecosystem.

  • Is KuCoin safe from the collapse of FTX?

    Is KuCoin safe from the collapse of FTX?

    KuCoin is a cryptocurrency exchange launched on 15th September 2017 and has over 20 million users worldwide. The recent bankruptcy of the FTX Group and “hack” however have resulted in a “contagion effect” resulting in speculation as to which other crypto companies might collapse. In this article, we answer the question- is KuCoin safe from the collapse of FTX.

    What is KuCoin?

    KuCoin is a centralized cryptocurrency exchange, meaning that users’ cryptocurrency deposits are stored and held in custody by the exchange. KuCoin refers to itself as “The People’s Exchange” and is headquartered in Seychelles. The exchange has over 20 million users worldwide and 660 million US dollars in trading volume daily. This certainly puts them in the top 10 most popular exchanges in the market.

    How might the collapse of FTX affect KuCoin?

    On 11th November 2022, FTX, FTX US, and Alameda filed for bankruptcy in the United States. This came after several days of withdrawals being suspended on the exchanges and rumours already circulating that they were in trouble. On the same day, it was reported that over US$600 million were drained from FTX by a hacker. This hacker was eventually identified to be a former employee of FTX exchange. It was also revealed that one of the reasons for FTX’s collapse was because Alameda Research, which was FTX’s trading house, had burned through nearly US$10 billion in cash belonging to its clients.

    The collapse of FTX has brought the safety of all centralized cryptocurrency exchanges to the forefront. This is especially since FTX was one of, if not, the largest cryptocurrency exchanges. The revelations that FTX had been wrongfully handling client funds have also sent fear amongst cryptocurrency traders.

    As a result, in the days leading up to the announcement of FTX’s bankruptcy filing, cryptocurrency traders were rushing to withdraw their funds stored on exchanges. There were rumours circulating as to which crypto companies had funds on FTX. And, if so, how much and whether they would be affected by the collapse of FTX. Meanwhile, some cryptocurrency services such as BlockFi have also suspended withdrawals and are rumoured to be filing for bankruptcy. Of course, being a major exchange, KuCoin was also subject to rumours and questions about its solvency and whether they are safe from the FTX contagion.

    KuCoin addresses rumours of outflows following FTX collapse

    On 9th November 2022, KuCoin’s CEO Johnny Lyu wrote a letter addressing the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) surrounding the exchange. The rumour surrounding KuCoin originated from a stablecoin outflow chart by Nansen, a blockchain analytics firm. The flowchart showed that US$300 million had left the exchange. However, it was quickly clarified by Nansen CEO Alex Svanevik that the US$300 million was merely a swap from USDT network to Tron. Therefore, the funds had in fact not left KuCoin exchange.

    Nansen clarifies the alleged outflow of US$300 million from KuCoin

    In the letter, KuCoin also notes that it was probably the 10th time in 6 months that there are circulating rumours on Twitter that KuCoin is insolvent. It is also admitted that KuCoin did suffer a hack in 2020 with over US$275 million worth of cryptocurrencies, resulting in a liquidity crisis. However, KuCoin was able to cover 100% of their users’ funds and so users did not suffer any loss.

    As seen below, KuCoin has also denied having any exposure to FTX or its native FTT token.

    Does KuCoin have any exposure to FTX or FTT?

    Lyu has also clarified on Twitter that KuCoin does not have any exposure on FTX or FTT. This dispelled the speculation by Cobie, host of the UpOnly podcast.

    KuCoin FTX FTT exposure rumour
    Lyu dispels rumours that KuCoin has exposure on FTX or FTT (Source: Twitter)

    Is KuCoin safe?

    As seen above, KuCoin has already expressly denied they have any exposure to or deposited any funds at FTX. To reassure its users, KuCoin has promised to release its Merkle tree proof-of-reserves (POF) in one month.

    Meanwhile, Nansen has listed KuCoin’s portfolios and explanatory statements of accounts here.

    The “total assets” and “net worth” figures in the portfolio show the sum of the cryptocurrencies in the wallet addresses provided by KuCoin. These wallets are continuously monitored by Nansen, although they cannot be taken as a complete statement of the actual assets or reserves held.

    On 11th November 2022, Lyu also provided an overview of their hot and cold addresses and holdings. KuCoin’s holdings as of 7:00 UTC on 11th November 2022 comprised of 20,504 BTC, 180,299 ETH, 1,075,909,241 USDT, 365,722,839 USDC, and 69,601,075 KCS.

    KuCoin wallet holdings

    As mentioned, KuCoin is working on the Merkle-tree proof-of-reserves. The exchange is also expecting the completion of an audit by third-party auditor Aarmanio LPP. Both are expected to be completed in a month’s time i.e. in around early December 2022.

    Therefore, it seems that KuCoin exchange is safe from the FTX collapse for now. However, users are still recommended to keep their funds off of any exchanges. Instead, users should consider storing their cryptocurrencies in hardware wallets as it means the cryptocurrencies are in their own custody. Check out our reviews for some popular hardware wallets:

  • FTX Hacked: Hacker Identity Revealed by Kraken

    FTX Hacked: Hacker Identity Revealed by Kraken

    FTX Advises Users to Delete App and Avoid Website

    On the same day FTX, FTX US, and Alameda Research filed for bankruptcy, more than $600 million was reportedly drained from the cryptocurrency exchange. Many FTX users reported that their wallet balance showed $0. Shortly afterwards, FTX officials confirmed on Telegram that a hack was ongoing, warning all users to delete the app and avoid visiting the website due to a possible malware attack.

    Source: FTX_Official (Telegram)

    See also: SBF vs CZ War: What’s Happening with FTX and Binance?

    Tether Blacklists Stolen USDT of the FTX Hack

    A sizeable portion of the stolen funds contained USDT. After FTX’s announcement, Tether immediately blacklisted $31.4 million worth of USDT linked to the transactions. According to ZachXBT, a blockchain investigator widely trusted by the DeFi community, the blacklisted USDT were made up of $3.9 million USDT on Avalanche and $27.5 million USDT on Solana.

    By blacklisting the stolen USDT, hackers will not be able to move them to other accounts or exchange them for other crypto. To compensate victims of the hack, Tether will burn the blacklisted USDT and reissue equal amounts of tokens to the original owner(s).

    FTX Hack Speculated to be an Inside Job

    Suspicions circulated on Twitter that the “hack” was a smokescreen for FTX insiders (possibly Sam Bankman-Fried himself) to run off with the funds. The timing of it all was too much of a coincidence to suggest an external attacker taking advantage of the situation.

    A former senior FTX employee, quoted by Autism Capital, believed that it was impossible for someone outside of FTX to have so much root access so quickly, suggesting an inside job is highly likely. To corroborate this, FTX CTO Gary Wang was seen making major changes to FTX’s GitHub code, which implies that the source of the “hack” began there.

    Dyma Budorin, co-founder and CEO of Hacken, also concurred that it was an inside job, albeit the “hacker” was inexperienced and sloppy.

    Kraken Reveals Hacker Identity to be FTX Insider

    The crypto community kept a close eye on the movement of the stolen funds, and discovered that one of the wallet addresses was linked to a Kraken exchange, where the hacker offloaded funds to a Tron wallet. This was a huge blunder for the hacker as Kraken holds know-your-customer (KYC) information of all registered accounts, allowing them to track down the wallet user.

    As a result, Kraken CSO Nick Percoco announced on Twitter than they know the identity of the hacker, and are assisting law enforcement agencies with the investigation. Percoco later confirmed that the wallet indeed belongs to a verified account registered by FTX. Sam Bankman-Fried and FTX will be making a public statement regarding this issue.

    To follow up on the investigation, Kraken has frozen accounts associated with the FTX Group and Alameda Research. They assured that they maintain full reserves and other Kraken clients are not affected.

  • SBF vs CZ War: What’s Happening with FTX and Binance?

    SBF vs CZ War: What’s Happening with FTX and Binance?

    Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao (CZ) and FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF), two of the most powerful men in the crypto industry, have been going toe to toe with each other on Twitter. But this fight is much bigger than both of them, as FUDs and controversies surrounding SBF and FTX could potentially impact the crypto industry. In this article, we will break down the core timeline of the feud and explain how its outcome could affect every investor in the crypto space.

    For the latest update. Check out our latest video- IT’S OVER: Binance to Acquire FTX

    IT’S OVER: Binance to Acquire FTX

    Alameda Research Reportedly Insolvent

    The current drama surrounding CZ and SBF began when the balance sheet of Alameda Research, the sister quantitative trading firm of FTX, was leaked. According to a private document CoinDesk reviewed, out of $14.6 billion in total assets of Alameda, $3.66 billion is in FTT, FTX’s native token, and $2.16 billion in FTT collateral. Other significant assets also include $3.37 billion of crypto tokens connected to SBF in one form or another including Solana (SOL), Serum (SRM), and more.

    This is a big red flag as it indicates that the majority of Alameda’s net equity is FTX’s own centrally controlled token printed out of thin air, making it completely illiquid. Let’s look at it this way: the current market cap of FTT is $2.3 billion and Alameda’s numbers show an excess of nearly 200% of the total circulating supply of FTT. This means that Alameda’s assets cannot be sold without severely impacting the market.

    Many crypto experts drew parallels from Celsius Network’s collapse as Alameda is following the same model, leading to widespread rumors of Alameda going insolvent.

    CEO of Alameda Research Caroline Ellison asserted on Twitter that the balance sheet only reflects a few of their biggest long positions, and the company actually has over $10 billion in assets that are not included in the balance sheet. However, this does not address the issue that Alameda is holding $5 billion worth of “magic money” reported on their balance sheet.

    Binance Liquidates Its Entire FTT Holdings

    Shortly after the leak, CZ posted a Twitter thread announcing Binance’s full exit from its FTT holdings. But they will do so in a way that minimizes market impact, selling it on the open market at monthly intervals. CZ fired shots at SBF stating that liquidating their FTT is a post-exit risk management, learning from the Terra Luna collapse. This implicated that FTX could potentially repeat history, heading into a death spiral if a bank run were to happen.

    Shortly after, Ellison responded to CZ that Alameda was willing to buy all of Binance’s FTT holdings at $22. Several members of the crypto community believed that the response seemed desperate and was a buyback red flag. CZ eventually declined the bid, and further added that he will not support “people who lobby against other industry players behind their backs.” This is in reference to SBF allegedly supporting the DCCPA draft bill last month that could pose significant threats to DeFi.

    If SBF’s alleged political stance is the match and Alameda’s balance sheet is gasoline, then CZ liquidating its entire FTT holdings is striking the match.

    This series of events sparked a lot of FUD in the crypto community, resulting in staggering outflows as people were rushing to withdraw funds from FTX, with stablecoin outflows from FTX reaching $451 million according to Nansen data. Reports also show a 4-8 hour delay and increased fees in FTX withdrawals, upsetting many FTX users. At the time of writing, FTT token has dropped 39% from its weekly high.

    Sam Bankman-Fried’s Response to Insolvency Rumors

    SBF recently issued a response (update: Tweet deleted) assuring people that FTX and its assets are fine. He explains that FTX has enough capital to cover all client holdings and is processing all withdrawals. In response to the cause of the overall situation, SBF stated that a competitor is targeting them with false rumors, throwing shade at CZ. Ironically, at the end of SBF’s Twitter thread, he calls for collaboration with CZ for the ecosystem.

    Though as calm as SBF is handling the situation, it does not address the issue that Alameda is holding $5 billion worth of FTT tokens printed out of thin air, the very same model that led to the collapse of Celsius. It is impossible to sell an illiquid asset without severely impacting the market. But at the end of the day, FTX is a highly reputable organization with a lot of resources and manpower.

    Larry Cermak, Vice President of Research at The Block, believes that FTX and Alameda has the size to weather through the storm, and that FTX going insolvent is near 0%. He also mentioned however that it is clear there are liquidity issues with FTX currently. Other crypto experts also agreed but also advised investors to treat the situation with caution.

    SBF vs CZ: Who won the war?

    CZ emerges as the clear winner in the war between SBF vs CZ. SBF indirectly admitted defeat on 9th November 2022 when he announced that he agreed to a “strategic transaction with Binance for FTX.com”. This, agreement, however, fell through as detailed in our article- Binance will NOT acquire FTX: What is next?

    The SBF vs CZ war finally ended with CZ coming out victorious on 11th November 2022, when SBF announced he had filed FTX, FTX US, and Alameda for voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the US.

    Now with FTX exchange out of the picture, CZ’s Binance exchange comes out top. Binance now has the highest 24-hour trading volume and page visits out of all the centralized cryptocurrency exchanges according to CoinGecko.

    Top cryptocurrency exchanges ranking (Source: CoinGecko)
  • Binance Will NOT Acquire FTX: What is Next?

    Binance Will NOT Acquire FTX: What is Next?

    Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao (CZ) decided that Binance will not go through with the deal to acquire FTX, one day after he announced that he intended to acquire FTX. This shocking turn of events could create a ripple effect throughout the crypto market, affecting all investors and businesses. In case you are out of the loop, our previous article “SBF vs CZ War” covers the core timeline of what has been happening that led to this event. You can also check out our latest video — FTX Collapsing: Biggest Disaster in Crypto? for more insight.

    Why Did Binance Back Out of the Acquisition Deal?

    Binance announced on Twitter that they will not go through with the deal to acquire FTX as a result of “corporate due diligence” and “mishandled customer funds” in FTX’s books pending investigations by U.S. regulatory agencies.

    This is in reference to speculations of FTX violating its own terms of service by using customer funds for trading and loaning it out to Alameda Research for a bailout in Q2 2022 following the Terra Luna collapse. To simply put, instead of keeping customer funds on FTX as liquid cash, FTX used customer funds to buy FTT tokens to bail out Alameda. (https://www.algerie360.com/)

    After this revelation, FTX users were rushing to cash out fearing the exchange might be going insolvent. This led to a liquidity crunch, forcing FTX to halt all crypto withdrawals. We are talking about at least $8 billion of user funds stuck on the exchange which possibly cannot be saved, according to Wall Street Journal.

    This is the most likely scenario, ascertained and corroborated by many crypto experts. jonwu.eth on Twitter gives a perfect summary of how everything went down. Funnily enough, FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) deleted his Tweet which he assured clients that their assets are fully protected. But as of now, these speculations are not officially confirmed. This is where U.S. regulators (SEC, DOJ) are stepping in to investigate FTX for potential securities-law violations, according to Wall Street Journal.

    How This Will Affect All Investors

    Binance acknowledged that the collapse of FTX will severely impact all retail investors, but will continue to build towards a stronger decentralized ecosystem. This is reiterated by CZ in his internal message sent to all Binance teams globally.

    source: @cz_binance (Twitter)

    It is not just user funds that are stuck on FTX, but other crypto projects’ as well. According to CoinDesk, many crypto businesses and ventures have exposure to FTX in one way or another, whether via storing funds, providing liquidity or borrowing and lending. This affects all ecosystems throughout the crypto industry as wild price swings trigger a domino effect of forced liquidations across the market, similar to Three Arrows Capital or Voyager Digital after the Terra Luna collapse.

    It is the first time Bitcoin (BTC) has fallen below $16,000 since November 2020, a 77% decrease from its all-time high last year. Since BTC has broken past its first support level of $19,000, it would take time for its range to be established after capitulation event. As BTC is the first and largest cryptocurrency by market cap, it practically dictates the price actions of all altcoins including Ethereum (ETH). We can expect the market to be highly volatile in the coming weeks.

    source: @CryptoCapo_ (Twitter)
  • Binance to Acquire FTX: What This Means for All Investors

    Binance to Acquire FTX: What This Means for All Investors

    On 8th November 2022, Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao (CZ) announced on Twitter that Binance intends to fully acquire FTX to help cover their liquidity crunch after FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) reached out to Binance for help. In case you are out of the loop, our previous article “SBF vs CZ War” covers the core timeline of what has been happening that led to this acquisition.

    In this article, we will break down the acquisition events as it unfolds and explain how this will affect every investor in the crypto space. You can also check out our latest video — FTX Collapsing: Biggest Disaster in Crypto? for more insight.

    FTX Halts Withdrawals due to Liquidity Crunch

    According to a report by Reuters, SBF sent an internal message on Tuesday morning to company employees stating that around $6 billion had been withdrawn out of FTX. Given the situation, FTX had no choice but to halt all crypto withdrawals due to lack of liquidity, which confirmed insolvency rumors about FTX.

    Since the liquidity of FTX and Alameda Research are mostly held in illiquid FTT (FTX native token) instead of liquid cash, there was no way for FTX users to cash out their funds. Moreover, no strategic investors and partners of FTX were able to help cover their billions of dollars in debt. As a last resort, SBF turned to none other than CZ who has more than enough resources and manpower to rescue him.

    Binance to Acquire FTX

    Hours after the withdrawal suspension, CZ announced on Twitter that Binance signed a non-binding Letter of Intent (LOI), intending to fully acquire FTX and help cover the liquidity crunch to protect users. For the time being, Binance is conducting a full Demand Draft (DD) in which they are assessing the situation about the acquisition.

    However, keep in mind that the LOI is non-binding, which means Binance has the discretion to pull out from the deal at any time. But if it goes through, FTX will be officially owned by Binance, possibly marking it the biggest moment in crypto history.

    On the withdrawal end, Binance has helped FTX on clearing out withdrawal backlogs. According to a Tweet by SBF, this will clear out liquidity crunches and all assets will be covered 1:1. However, some users are still experiencing withdrawal delays as shown by the comments under the Tweet.

    What will Happen to FTX Users after Binance Acquisition?

    Although this may seem like a big move for Binance, the outcome created a ripple effect that could potentially affect every investor in the crypto space. Good or not, only time will tell.

    Binance May Damage the Long-Term Interests of Crypto

    As we have learned from FTX’s downfall as well as Terra Luna’s collapse, one thing is for certain in the crypto space: nothing is certain. No one saw it coming. The same could be said about Binance as well. (https://www.blazeair.com/) That is not to say that Binance is next, but the possibility is never zero.

    After all, despite Binance being a highly reputable crypto exchange and CZ’s passion and commitment to building a truly decentralized ecosystem, it is a centralized business at the end of the day. With FTX out of the equation, Binance will be the undisputed powerhouse in the crypto industry, which goes against the idea of decentralization, the core pillar of crypto. If Binance falls, the crypto market goes back to the dark ages. Gracey Chen, Managing Director of Bitget, said on Twitter that Binance’s acquisition of FTX harms decentralization and could damage the long-term interests of the industry.

    Nevertheless, CZ assures the public that the business model of Binance is aligned with decentralization and puts user security first. He asserted that Binance has never used BNB as collateral for loans and has never taken on debt. He also added that all crypto exchanges should incorporate merkle-tree proof-of-reserves, since fractional reserves only work for banks and not crypto exchanges. This reflects CZ’s proactiveness in building a more secure and decentralized ecosystem.

    Increased Scrutiny and Regulations on Crypto Exchanges

    Binance’s acquisition of FTX has definitely raised major concerns for government authorities. Several CEOs of other major crypto exchanges such as Jesse Powell (Kraken), Brian Armstrong (Coinbase), Jeremy Allaire (Circle), and Kris Marszalek (Crypto.com) expressed on Twitter that government authorities might step in next to enforce more heavy-handed regulations.

    Although strict regulations could stabilize the market and protect user funds, it also limits digital freedom for retail investors as the whole point of crypto is trustless transactions without central authorities. It is basically a dilemma: too much involvement from the government defeats the purpose of the crypto space, too little breeds unregulated securities and malicious actors.

  • Voyager Digital goes bankrupt: A victim of the Three Arrows Capital collapse?

    Voyager Digital goes bankrupt: A victim of the Three Arrows Capital collapse?

    Voyager Digital is a publicly listed crypto brokerage firm which filed for bankruptcy on 5th July 2022.

    Who is Voyager Digital?

    Voyager Digital was founded in 2017 as a cryptocurrency brokerage firm allowing clients to buy and sell cryptocurrencies and other digital assets on its platform. Their main feature was that they did not charge commission fees through utilizing its smart order routing to connect to dozens of other cryptocurrency exchanges and market makers. Voyager Digital is currently listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the stock ticker VOYG.

    Voyager Digital is also a major creditor of Three Arrows Capital, which has also recently filed for bankruptcy. Since 1st July 2022, Voyager Digital has temporarily suspended all trading, deposits, withdrawals, and loyalty rewards on its platform.

    Voyager Digital files for bankruptcy

    Voyager Digital issued a Notice of Default against 3AC on 27th June 2022 and reduced its withdrawal limit to US$10k per day. This spooked shareholders and users of Voyager Digital. The Company saw its share prices plunge over 60% after its ties with 3AC was revealed, combined with its poor performance during the crypto downturn.

    The Notice stated that 3AC failed to make timely repayments on its loan of 15,250 BTC and US$350 million USDC. However, Voyager Digital has reassured its users that its platform is still fully functional. Furthermore, as of 24th June 2022, Voyager had approximately US$137 cash and crypto assets on hand. The Company also has US$200 milllon cash and USDC, and a 15,000 BTC revolving loan from Alameda Ventures Limited.

    On 5th July 2022, Voyager Digital Holdings filed for bankruptcy in the Southern District of New York. Voyager Digital estimates it has over 100,000 creditors and total debts of somewhere between US$1 to US$10 billion in liabilities. The Company believes that notwithstanding its liabilities, it still has around US$1 to US$10 billion in assets. They also assure that will have sufficient funds available for distribution to its unsecured creditors.

    According to a tweet by CEO Stephen Ehrlich, the purpose of filing for bankruptcy was to “…protect assets on the platform, [and] maximize value for all stakeholders.”

    This is certainly a huge relief to Alameda Research. They are listed in court documents filed by Voyager as its largest unsecured creditor with over US$75million in unpaid debts. This is substantially larger than its second largest unsecured creditor with a US$9.7million claim.

    Meanwhile, the share prices of Voyager Digital Ltd (VYGVF) plummeted by almost 12% as a result of this development. Share prices for the Company took a huge hit since their involvement with 3AC was discovered. VYGVF share prices have been down nearly 89% since early June 2022.

    FTX to bail out Voyager Digital?

    FTX exchange recently secured a winning bid of US$1.42 billion for Voyager Digital’s assets. The assets included in the bid include (i) the fair market value of all of Voyager’s cryptocurrency at a future date to be determined, worth around US$1.3 billion; and (2) additional consideration of “incremental value”, worth around US$111 million. As for Voyager’s claims against Three Arrows Capital, this will remain with the bankruptcy estate and any amount eventually recovered will be distributed to the estate’s creditors.

    The tentative plan from FTX will allow all priority claimants to be paid out in full. Meanwhile, other account holders would be able to recover approximately 72% of their account value. The plan for FTX to buy out Voyager’s assets however is still pending the approval of Voyager’s creditors and the Court.

    Voyager Digital suspends withdrawals, will customers get their USD and crypto back?

    According to the latest blog post from Voyager Digital, they are working to restore access to customers’ USD deposits. However, it does not mention when withdrawals will be reopened. Voyager Digital also alleged that customers’ USD in their Voyager cash account is held in a For Benefit of Customers account at the Metropolitan Commercial Bank of New York (and not by Voyager themselves) and is Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insured. However, a joint letter dated 28th July 2022 from the Federal Reserve and the FDIC to Voyager requests them to remove “false and misleading” statements that its user deposit accounts are FDIC insured.

    As for customers’ cryptocurrencies, Voyager states that they have approximately US$1.3 billion worth of crypto assets on their platform. This is inclusive of its over US$650million claim against Three Arrows Capital.

    Voyager has proposed a reorganization plan which is currently pending the approval of the Court. Customers will be able to select the following options with regards to their cryptocurrencies held by Voyager:

    1. Pro-rata share of cryptocurrencies;
    2. Pro-rata share of proceeds recovered from Three Arrows Capital;
    3. Pro-rata share of common shares in Voyager after it is reorganized; and
    4. Pro-rata share of existing Voyager tokens.

    However, according to Voyager, this is not the finalized plan. Voyager’s customers will have the opportunity to vote on whether or not they agree with the reorganization plan. It is likely that it will be a long time before customers will have their funds and cryptocurrencies returned.

    Voyager details claim process for customers

    Voyager’s blog post details how affected customers with cryptocurrencies in their accounts can begin to claim their crypto. Voyager will be sending an email from “Voyager Digital Restructuring” containing a unique link and personal identification number. The link will set out the customers’ account holdings. If customers agree with the account information set out in the email, they are not required to submit a claim form. On the other hand, if customers disagree with the information, or the claim is marked as “contingent”, “unliquidated” or “disputed”, they must submit a proof of claim form. This Proof of Claim form must be filed on Voyager’s case website on or before 3rd October 2022 at 5:00pm EST.

    However, there is still no information on when affected customers can actually receive the cryptocurrencies locked in their Voyager Digital accounts.

    Voyager customers say no to “retention bonus” totaling US$1.9 million to employees.

    Voyager had asked the Court to approve a US$1.9 million payment to 38 of its employees as a “retention bonus”. The Company claims that these employees are essential to its continued operation and restructuring, and are apparently non-executive employees. Voyager is also asking the Court to allow them to redact the names, titles, salaries, proposed bonuses and other information relating to the 38 persons. Their reasoning is that this is non-public and personal information which could be sensitive.

    However, a group of Voyager customers objected to Voyager’s proposal, stating that its employees are already well-compensated and that there is little evidence that they plan to resign. They also argue that the Company has otherwise done little else to reduce costs. The US Trustee’s Office is also objecting to Voyager’s proposal, particularly to the request to redact the employees’ information. This is because they see it as critical information that stakeholders should have in order to evaluate whether the proposed bonus is necessary.

    On 24th August 2022, the Court ultimately approved Voyager’s application to pay US$1.9 million in retention bonuses to employees.

  • Will Terra Luna Classic (LUNC) Make a Comeback? USTC Repeg?

    Will Terra Luna Classic (LUNC) Make a Comeback? USTC Repeg?

    Everyone loves a good comeback story. With Luna Classic now in the hands of the community, they are doing everything in their power to revive the ecosystem. Several crypto heavyweights such as Binance have also joined their cause. The question is, “will Luna Classic succeed long-term?” In this article, we will take a look at the recovery plan proposed by the Classic community and share some insights on the future direction of Luna Classic.

    History of Terra Luna

    The collapse of the Terra ecosystem in May 2022 was one of the most devastating black swan events in crypto history, wiping at least $60 billion off the market which triggered a dangerous domino effect across the industry such as the fall of Three Arrows Capital and Voyager Digital.

    Terraform Labs (TFL) developers shortly abandoned the Classic chain in support of Luna 2.0, the new Terra blockchain. This led to an overhaul of the community demographic, leaving only the validators and true believers of Luna Classic behind, not to mention millions of investors who are still holding onto LUNC or USTC with no exit opportunity.

    Luna Classic’s Chance at Redemption

    Despite its unfortunate history, there might be a glimmer of hope for Luna Classic. The technology and blockchain infrastructure are still there, and developers can still build on it. In fact, there are numerous DApps that have expressed an interest to return and build on Luna Classic. However, the ecosystem faces the opposite problem of most layer-one protocols. Instead of incentivizing user adoption with tokens, Luna Classic has hundreds of thousands of active users but no additional token incentives.

    This means that Luna Classic’s native tokens do not offer much utilities for developers to build off of, due to trillions of LUNC tokens in circulation and the USTC depeg. Therefore, in order to attract developers and builders to the Classic chain, the token situation must be addressed, and that is exactly what the community is doing right now.

    Luna Classic – Community-Driven Blockchain

    Community volunteers have self-organized into multiple groups to help build and restore the Luna Classic blockchain. Terra Rebels is one of the larger communities with seasoned developers and business professionals that is leading the recovery plan. None of the groups have any affiliation with TFL nor work under any central organization or established entities at this time. Essentially, the communities are filling the developer void impartially and in accordance with community proposals that pass the voting process. All codes are open to audits and feedbacks, and all community members have a say in vetting and implementing the code base.

    On August 26th 2022, after two months of disabled proof-of-stake validation in response to the collapse, governance was restored as citizens of Luna Classic could delegate, stake, and vote for the future of the ecosystem. As of now, proposals and the associated implementations are being passed by the Terra Classic Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO). When adopted, a new wave of delegators and validators from the community would stake on Luna Classic, built by community developers. This would be the beginning of a truly community-driven blockchain, but the path to that is still long and arduous.

    Recovery Plan of Luna Classic

    Deflationary Token Mechanism (Tax and Burn)

    On September 15th 2022, Terra Classic governance proposal 4661 passed with a 99.88% “yes” vote to enable a 1.2% tax and burn on all on-chain transactions. With more than 6 trillion LUNC in circulation, the main goal is to reduce the hyperinflated total supply until it reaches 10 billion LUNC. After that, the mechanism will be disabled via smart contract, and the total supply will not be changed. Based on the law of supply and demand, this creates scarcity which inherently increases the value of LUNC tokens. However, it takes more than just burning for LUNC to maintain a relatively stable price. There has to have a mechanism for LUNC to capture some of the value brought to the blockchain, otherwise it would be another exit race for all investors.

    The main concern for the tax and burn is that it would likely reduce on-chain activities, as core users and projects are affected. Terra Rebels addressed this in their white paper, stating that the community can structure the implementation to be flexible as time progresses. The tax rate can be changed via parameter proposal at any time and adjusted after every epoch. Nevertheless, the community has voiced with unity that they are willing to play their part.

    The bigger play here however is to reach out to major centralized exchanges (CEX) and implement the same tax and burn for all LUNC trades on their platform, since it only applies to on-chain transactions. As a result, several major CEXes such as Binance, KuCoin, Kraken, Huobi, MEXC Global, and more have joined the cause. Moreover, a petition has been filed on change.org to relist LUNC on Coinbase. It is important to note that the Terra ecosystem is still under strict government regulations as a result of the collapse. But if it succeeds, the help from the U.S. market would greatly accelerate the burning process.

    This goes to show the power of a unified and driven decentralized community, and perhaps the potential crypto heavyweights see in a Luna Classic comeback.

    USTC Repeg Proposal

    In October 2022, two factions of the Terra community proposed their own approach to repeg USTC. As both plans are new, there are no specific timings outlined. It is up to the community to debate these proposals and decide which approach is better.

    Proposal #1 – Algorithmic Fungible Token Debt Restructuring

    The first one jointly published by Alex Forshaw, Edward Kim and Maximilian Bryan presents the idea of minting 500 million LUNC to purchase Bitcoin as collateral for a new algorithmic fungible token (AFT) called USTN. The whole point of it is for current USTC holders to receive compensation meaningful relative to the current USD value of their holdings, making them as whole as possible under current legal constraints. It is akin to a debt-for-equity swap in traditional finance.

    However, this proposal was met with a lot of criticisms from the community, since minting more LUNC defeats the purpose of the tax and burn initiative. Although it would create a short-term growth cycle, it would most likely be unsustainable medium to long-term, due to the oversupply of LUNC.

    Shortly afterwards, Forshaw announced that the updated plan will not involve minting LUNC. Instead, USTN’s Bitcoin collateral will be managed by a tranche-based decentralized reserve system as outlined in section 5 of their original white paper. However, most of the community still do not like the idea of creating a new token. Why not just create mechanisms around USTC, bringing value to the ecosystem, instead of phasing it out? This is where the second proposal comes in.

    Proposal #2 – Quantitative Tightening to Incentivize New Businesses

    In response to Forshaw’s proposal, core developer Tobias Andersen (aka Zaradar) developed a different solution that focuses on improving USTC, instead of substituting it. Andersen believes that a USTC repeg could be accomplished by incentivizing new businesses to use Luna Classic’s existing blockchain infrastructure. The plan to achieve this however is a more “painful” journey as quoted by the author, but is more organic and sustainable in the long run.

    The plan adapts a form of quantitative tightening (QT), a traditional finance technique used by central banks to decrease liquidity in the economy. For Luna Classic, it would involve installing burn taxes and increasing interest rates on staking rewards. Rewards would be lowered and lock-up periods increased. The whole point is to significantly reduce the circulating supply of both USTC and LUNC, making the value networks sustainable long-term.

    As for incentivizing new businesses on the blockchain, the features include partitioned pools, where DApps can create their own commodity token which is captalized via LUNC and traded via USTC. Based on each pool, this brings another utility to USTC as a “value transfer”, with investors using the stablecoin to swap between pools. To help keep partitioned pools stable, a swap tax is applied when commodity tokens exit the partitioned pools into USTC. This process would be measured and regulated by the ABS keeper, which is a range of volatility guards and tax policies governed by the DAO.

    However, some things are unclear in the proposal. Andersen did not explain exactly how a successful implementation of these would help USTC regain its peg, and more importantly maintain the peg. He only explained a way to appreciate the price of USTC with increased network activity on the blockchain. Unless there is a way to successfully prevent another death spiral, we would see $10 billion worth of USTC debt tear down any bull run with an avalanche of speculative mercenary capital.

    Rebuilding the Project Ecosystem

    In order to restore DApp and project support on the Luna Classic, Terra Rebels will restore inter-block communication (IBC) between Osmosis and Terra, re-enabling and unlocking the transfer of token and data between chains. Currently, more than 150 million USTC is stuck in Osmosis alone. Opening up the channel will allow users to transfer funds from Osmosis’ LUNC and USTC liquidity pools for use in other DApps.

    Moreover, on June 24th 2022, Terra Rebels launched “Rogue-1” TestNet to test governance parameter proposals and ensure the tax burn code is working. It also has the necessary upgrades in Cosmos smart contracts and IBC to communicate with the rest of the Cosmos ecosystem. Based upon the Luna v2 core, other projects built on Luna v2 will not require additional development as it is compatible with both blockchains. The core implementation is expected to be completed in 2023.

    Verdict on Luna Classic Comeback

    For Luna Classic, there is a sense of justice that is unprecedented in the history of crypto. People around the world have literally lost their life savings because of the collapse. Similar to how volunteers help rebuild communities who were hit by natural disasters, we are seeing the crypto community and even crypto powerhouses step in to help revive a project with a failed reputation and fix a problem they did not create.

    There is a reason why LUNC is still performing relatively well, ranking top 35 in market cap at the time of writing. Whereas LUNA is barely in the top 100, since it is more associated with Do Kwon and the TFL. This goes to show that the Classic chain is entirely governed and driven by the community, which is the essence of decentralization in the first place.

    Despite the communities’ effort, there is no way to be sure that the comeback of Luna Classic is written in the stars. As of now, the proposed plans of the community solely focus on reducing the hyperinflated token supply and attracting new businesses to the blockchain. And even if Luna Classic does make a comeback, we cannot know for certain that their token price and network activity will remain stable long-term. But it is reasonable (or optimistic) to assume that the plans being debated and deployed now are just the first step to recovery.

  • Why Do Cross-Chain Bridges Keep Getting Hacked?

    Why Do Cross-Chain Bridges Keep Getting Hacked?

    Out of all blockchain attacks, cross-chain bridges are one of the most targetted ones. Just last week, Binance lost $570 million as a result of an exploit on Binance Smart Chain’s Token Hub Bridge. Even Binance, one of the world’s secure and reputable cryptocurrency platforms, fell victim to a cross-chain bridge hack. This brings us to an important question: why do cross-chain bridges keep getting hacked, and why do people still use them despite its security risk?

    Why Do People Use Cross-Chain Bridges?

    One of the biggest limitations of blockchains has been their inability to work together. Each blockchain has its own protocols or smart contracts that are not compatible with other blockchains on a programmable level. As a result, you cannot spend Bitcoin in the Ethereum network, for example. This is where cross-chain bridges come in to provide interoperability.

    A cross-chain bridge connects two blockchains, enabling users to transfer data and liquidity from one chain to the other. It also allows users to access new protocols on other chains, making it so that developers from different blockchain communities can collaborate together. Moreover, with Lego-like composability of decentralized finance (DeFi) applications, cross-chain bridges can potentially open up a whole new world of efficient and creative financial services and products for users.

    Without cross-chain bridges, the crypto industry would be bottlenecked by network congestions, since there is no bridge to off-load data and transaction executions.

    Why are Cross-Chain Bridges Vulnerable?

    When you bridge an asset to another blockchain, it is not exactly “sent.” Instead, through smart contract execution, the assets are first deposited, locked, or burned on one blockchain. Afterwards, they are then credited, unlocked, or minted on the other blockchain in the form of a wrapped token.

    However, this asset conversion is not guaranteed. This is because cross-chain bridges are independent entities that do not belong to any blockchain. This means that no blockchain can verify that any asset is bridged, since they cannot access off-chain information. The bridging process mainly relies on two parties to ensure successful transfer:

    • Third-party oracles who interpret off-chain data for on-chain use.
    • Validators or custodians (DAO or smart contract) who safekeep the original asset and release the wrapped asset.

    As you can see, there are several layers of trust, not just during the token swap but throughout the entire bridging process. Users must additionally continue to trust that they will be able to bridge the wrapped token back in the future on a 1:1 basis. Herein lies the vulnerability of cross-chain bridges: with multiple processes and third-party involvements, there is a brief window of time where hackers can target any one of these actions in isolation, not to mention possible bugs or flaws in the smart contract coding in which hackers can exploit.

    How are Cross-Chain Bridges Hacked?

    A successful cross-chain bridge hack typically ends up with tokens being minted on one blockchain without a corresponding deposit on the other. There are three types of exploits to achieve this:

    Fake Deposits

    During the bridging process, each deposit has to be validated before allowing a transfer to go through. If a hacker can create a fake deposit that validates as a real one, they can trick the system into minting free tokens without putting in any money.

    This mostly happens due to a flaw in the logic of the smart contract coding, where both tokens share the same proof of event. This would allow the attacker to call the function to deposit one token with fake data that can generate proof to withdraw the other token on the other blockchain.

    This is what happened to Binance when the attacker managed to forge proof messages of non-existent tokens that were then accepted by the BSC Token Hub bridge.

    Signature Verification Bypass

    A digital signature is a process to verify transactions, using the private key to sign the transaction and its corresponding public key to authorize the sender. However, if the smart contract uses an outdated function, it may not be able to verify the correctness of certain instructions. As a result, an attacker could create an input account with malicious data to spoof previously valid digital signatures. This would allow them to bypass the verification step and generate proof messages to mint free tokens.

    The Wormhole hack is an example of this attack, where the hacker bypassed the verification step by injecting a spoofed SYSVAR account, enabling them to freely mint 120,000 wETH (worth $326 million at the time).

    Validator Majority Attack

    Some cross-chain bridges have validators that vote whether or not to approve certain transfers. Similar to a 51% attack, if an attacker controls a majority of the validators, they can approve any transaction, allowing them to withdraw free money. An infamous case of this is the Ronin Network hack, where the attacker took control five of the nine validator nodes and stole $620 million.

  • Blockchain Attacks Explained: Understanding Network Vulnerabilities

    Blockchain Attacks Explained: Understanding Network Vulnerabilities

    Based on principles of cryptography, decentralization and consensus, blockchain technology offers one of the strongest securities against traditional cyber attacks. However, it is not foolproof, even the strongest blockchains like Bitcoin and Ethereum have inherent vulnerabilities due to their infrastructure. In this article, we will look at the different types of attacks possible on a blockchain.

    51% Attack

    What is a 51% Attack?

    A 51% attack, also known as a majority attack, is when a single person or a coordinated group controls over 50% of the hashing power on proof-of-work blockchains OR more than half of the validating power (staked cryptocurrencies) on proof-of-stake blockchains.

    How does a 51% Attack work?

    Since transactions on a blockchain are validated via consensus, owning 51% of the blockchain’s hashing power or staked crypto gives the attacker majority rule, effectively allowing them to take control of the network. In such a scenario, the attacker has the final say in the validation process, even if the other 49% are against it. This potentially causes network disruption in a number of ways:

    • The attacker could reverse their own transactions, leading to a double-spending problem.
    • They could rewrite parts of the blockchain protocol, deliberately modifying the ordering of certain transactions.
    • They can even prevent some or all transactions from being confirmed, denying other miners or validators from earning rewards, which results in a monopoly.

    Limitations of a 51% Attack

    On the other hand, a 51% attack does have its limits in the amount of disruption it can cause. While the attacker could reverse their own transaction, they cannot reverse other users’ transactions on the network. Moreover, given the immutable nature of the blockchain, the attacker cannot alter the functionality of block rewards nor create coins out of thin air (unless there is a bug in the smart-contract coding).

    How likely will a 51% Attack happen?

    While possible, a 51% attack is unlikely as it is extremely expensive to execute. Owning more than half of the network’s computing power or staked crypto could potentially cost millions or billions of dollars depending on the user population of the blockchain. This is why the bigger the network, the stronger the protection. A majority attack is virtually impossible to occur in leading blockchains such as Bitcoin, Ethereum and Binance Smart Chain.

    But it is worth noting that the blockchain should be truly decentralized, on top of having a large userbase. This is because organizing a 51% attack would most likely be a coordinated effort. If several malicious actors collude and pool their resources together, then the network would be more centralized, which could potentially lead to a majority attack. This is more prevalent amongst smaller altcoin blockchains. Ethereum Classic (ETC), Bitcoin Gold (BTG), and Verge (XVG) were notable victims of the 51% attack.

    Sybil Attack

    What is a Sybil Attack?

    A Sybil attack is when an attacker uses a single node to create and operate multiple fake accounts in order to gain disproportionate influence over decisions made in the network. It is a smaller variation of a 51% attack. The main difference is that a Sybil attack largely focuses on manipulating the number of accounts or nodes rather than already owning them. It also targets smaller areas in the blockchain, whereas a 51% attack is capable of taking over the entire network. However, in some cases, a successful large-scale Sybil attack can transition to a 51% attack.

    The word “Sybil” derives from a case study about a woman named Sybil Dorsett, who was diagnosed with a Dissociative Identity Disorder, also known as Multiple Personality Disorder.

    How does a Sybil Attack work?

    A Sybil attack is quite difficult to detect and prevent, because most public blockchains do not have trusted nodes due to its decentralized nature. This means that the system perceives all nodes and accounts as real, even the fake ones. There are two scenarios of a Sybil attack:

    1. By creating numerous fake identities (or Sybil identities), the attacker will have enough capacity to out-vote the honest nodes on the network, allowing them to perform unauthorized actions in the system.
    2. The attacker can also control the flow of information in a network. If the attacker manages to obtain information about your IP address, they can create many fake nodes to surround you. They can then prevent you from receiving or transmitting blocks, effectively blocking you from using the network.

    How to prevent Sybil Attacks?

    Although a lot of time and research went into figuring out a way to detect and prevent Sybil attacks, there is still no guaranteed defense as of today. But there are some ways to help mitigate Sybil attacks:

    1. Identity validation techniques such as phone number, credit card or IP address verification can help reveal the true identity of hostile entities. This is a secure way to suss out fake accounts or bots for most types of peer-to-peer networks. However, this relies on a central authority to perform these identity validations which sacrifices anonymity for accountability. Moreover, this means that the validation authority could become a target for attack.
    2. Social trust graphs, on the other hand, can limit the extent of damage by a specific Sybil attacker, while maintaining anonymity. You can analyze connectivity data in social graphs like SybilGuard or SybilLimit to identify suspected Sybil clusters in distributed systems. But this technique is not perfect either, as small-scale Sybil attacks are more difficult to detect.

    Blockchain Denial of Service Attack (BDoS)

    Denial of Service Attack (DoS)

    Before we go into Blockchain Denial of Service attacks (BDoS), let’s take a look at its predecessors.

    Traditionally, a Denial of Service attack (DoS) or a Distributed Denial of Service attack (DDoS) when multiple computers are involved, is a malicious attempt to disrupt real users’ access to a website or network service by overloading its servers with a massive amount of traffic, causing the website or application to slow down its functionality or even crash entirely.

    But for blockchains, a DoS or DDoS attack is difficult to execute, especially if the network’s userbase is large and decentralized. This is because a decentralized network distributes computing power worldwide, eliminating single points of failure such as servers or apps. Even if several nodes are down, the blockchain is able to continue operating and validating transactions, unless…

    What is a Blockchain Denial of Service Attack (BDoS)?

    With the rise of blockchain technology, a new type of DoS attack emerged — a Blockchain Denial of Service attack (BDoS). These attacks focus on the protocol layer of a blockchain, usually PoW blockchains, with the biggest threat being transaction flooding.

    Since most blockchains have a fixed block size, there is a limit to how many transactions can fit into a block. Attackers can exploit this by spamming transactions to the blockchain, filling the blocks to prevent legitimate transactions from being added to the chain. The legitimate transactions remain in the public mempool waiting for the next block.

    When this happens, the throughput capacity of the network is drastically slowed down, and in some cases shut down. It happened to Solana in January 2022, where the network went offline for four hours as a result of a BDoS attack.

    How to prevent a Blockchain Denial of Service Attack (BDoS)?

    Penetration testing is a core security auditing process that helps identify potential vulnerabilities before the mainnet is deployed. By simulating in-dept attacks, penetration testing offers traffic analytics tools that can help blockchain developers spot some of the telltale signs of a DoS attack such as unusual traffic patterns from a single IP address or IP range.

    In our previous article, we have covered some of the top blockchain security auditing firms that offer the best penetration testing services.