News linked to both this project and an event.
Humility Protocol released a security incident update on the X platform, stating that its H token suffered a coordinated attack on the Ethereum and BSC chains yesterday, with confirmed losses exceeding $36 million in stolen and dumped assets.Preliminary investigations indicate the incident originated from a compromised employee computer, which led to the leakage of private keys for the multi-signature wallet controlling the Hyperlane Bridge ProxyAdmin. Specifically, the attacker obtained 3 out of 6 private keys of the Gnosis Safe wallet on the Ethereum chain, transferred ownership of the ProxyAdmin to a wallet under their control, upgraded the bridge contract to a malicious implementation, and subsequently transferred approximately 141.2 million H tokens in a single transaction.Simultaneously, the attacker also gained control of 3 out of 5 private keys of the Safe wallet on the BSC chain, took over the ProxyAdmin using the same method, deployed a malicious contract with unlimited minting functionality, and minted 200 million H tokens in two separate transactions to their own wallet.Humility stated that it has suspended all deposit and withdrawal operations on the affected bridge services and is collaborating with partners such as exchanges to mitigate losses. Meanwhile, it is cooperating with the police investigation and attempting to recover part of the stolen funds.
According to monitoring by on-chain analyst Ember, the "private key leak" has allowed the minting and dumping of H to continue for 13 hours. The so-called "hacker" is still able to mint H on the BSC chain and sell it off, draining every last cent from the pools. The "hacker" has minted 300 million H and sold a total of approximately 450 million H, cashing out $34 million (ETH+BNB). The H pool on BSC has been drained to just $13 in liquidity, and the price of H has plummeted 99.9% to $0.0009. Meanwhile, the perpetual contract price on CEX stands at $0.09, a 100x difference. In essence, they have de-pegged into two unrelated tokens.
according to Lookonchain monitoring, the Humanity hacker has minted an additional 100 million H tokens on the BSC chain. The hacker has already obtained 18,510 ETH (worth $30.83 million) and 1,548 BNB (worth $924,000) by selling H tokens. The hacker currently still holds 111.36 million H tokens (worth $14 million) for sale. On-chain liquidity is now nearly depleted.
According to Specter (@SpecterAnalyst), Humanity Protocol has been hacked, with losses exceeding $31 million. Funds are still being transferred, and the attacker is converting H into ETH.
: According to Onchain Lens monitoring, Humanity Protocol has suffered a hacker attack, with losses exceeding $31 million. The fund outflow is ongoing, as the hacker is converting H tokens into ETH.
Odaily News, June 9th — BitMEX co-founder Arthur Hayes stated in his latest article "Reality Test" that if oil prices continue to rise due to the US-Iran conflict, it could trigger a collapse of the AI stock bubble and drag the entire crypto market down.Hayes said that if traffic restrictions in the Strait of Hormuz persist deep into the second quarter, spot prices for hydrocarbons and other key commodities could rise in the third quarter. If oil prices continue to climb and inflationary pressures impact the US midterm elections, Trump might pivot to a tough stance targeting data center construction, AI regulation, and taxation. Hayes believes the market could anticipate Trump limiting AI capital expenditure and taxing AI companies, thereby triggering the burst of the AI stock bubble.Hayes also noted that since November 2022, the scale of AI-related debt issuance has been approximately $1.5 trillion, and US M2 has increased by roughly the same amount during the same period. He believes the three factors that could pop the AI bubble include rising energy costs, the market's inability to absorb three major AI-related IPOs — namely SpaceX, Anthropic, and OpenAI — and Trump's shift to opposing AI. In terms of portfolio, Hayes stated that Maelstrom's stock portfolio holds significant positions in US-listed energy producers; he has sold AI-related stocks and offloaded non-core crypto assets, having dumped HYPE, NEAR, and WLD last week, as well as selling ZEC due to the Orchard Pool vulnerability. He still holds Bitcoin and ETH and will execute tactical short trades via derivatives.
in April this year, KelpDAO's LayerZero bridge was exploited in a $292 million vulnerability attack, triggering an $8.45 billion deposit run on Aave within 48 hours, marking the largest capital outflow event in decentralized finance (DeFi) history. Aave founder Stani Kulechov stated that the design of Aave V3 withstood the market test, demonstrating the network's "resilience." However, independent data indicates that Aave's survival primarily relied on $300 million in emergency rescue, including a 25,000 ETH guarantee from the Aave DAO and a personal injection of 5,000 ETH (approximately $8.4 million) by Kulechov.Kulechov attributed the vulnerability to third-party infrastructure rather than core smart contracts. However, analysts pointed out that this incident exposed deficiencies in Aave's risk architecture and insurance mechanisms, leading the platform to incur significant bad debt (approximately $123.7 million in wETH). To prevent future bridge failures from triggering systemic bank runs, Aave V4 will adopt a modular "hub-and-spoke" architecture, enabling local risk auto-adjustment and collateral freezing. (CoinDesk)
according to Lookonchain monitoring, 6 hours ago, the Pando Rings hacker (0x303...3d9F) spent 10 million DAI to buy 6,243 ETH at an average price of $1,602.
According to on-chain security firm CertiK (@CertiKAlert), the Gravity Bridge attacker recently deposited another 1,180 ETH (approximately $2.06 million) into Tornado Cash. Earlier, on May 30, the attacker exploited the permissionless deployERC20() function by forging the Osmosis token string, tampering with the token registry, and mapping fake balances to real custodial assets—thereby stealing approximately 2,600 ETH (around $5.4 million) from Gravity Bridge. To date, 2,020 ETH of the stolen funds have been transferred to Tornado Cash via two externally owned accounts (EOAs); the remainder has been dispersed across centralized exchanges, making fund recovery significantly challenging.
According to on-chain analyst PeckShield (@PeckShieldAlert), approximately 19 hours ago, TesseraDao (@TesseraDao) on BNB Chain was attacked. The hacker maliciously minted 99 million TSR tokens and immediately dumped them, causing the TSR price to plummet by 99%. The attacker then exchanged the stolen TSR for approximately $2.5 million in USDT and cross-chained the funds to Ethereum. The attacker has since laundered 1,285.5 ETH via TornadoCash.
According to The Block, the DeFi lending protocol Radiant Capital has announced it will officially cease operations. The protocol suffered a hack in October 2024, losing approximately $51 million; the attacker gained unauthorized access by deploying backdoor contracts on Arbitrum and BNB Chain. Earlier in 2024, the protocol had also been hit by a flash loan attack, resulting in a loss of roughly 1,900 ETH (approximately $4.5 million). After 18 months of recovery efforts, Radiant Capital stated that it has neither recovered a significant portion of the stolen funds nor secured new financing, declaring that “the DAO has no viable path forward.” The protocol will now enter a “maintenance mode”: its frontend and smart contracts remain accessible, allowing users to withdraw funds, repay loans, and manage positions. Any funds recovered in the future will be returned to affected users.
According to The Block, security researcher Florent successfully unlocked approximately 1,003 ETH (valued at roughly $2 million) that had been locked for nearly a decade in the 2016 HongCoin ICO smart contract, using a white-hat vulnerability. The contract’s refund function had remained nonfunctional for years due to the absence of overflow protection in the legacy Solidity version used. Florent collaborated with the HongCoin team to reset token balances via an admin function, completing the process in about one week. Currently, 48 original investors are eligible to claim the unfrozen funds; two have already claimed a total of 96.5 ETH and voluntarily paid Florent a white-hat reward. Florent stated that this unlock was purely a technical exploration and that he charged no fees or commissions.
Aave has published a post-mortem of the April 18 rsETH incident, stating that the rsETH LayerZero V2 cross-chain bridge of liquid staking protocol Kelp accepted a forged message during a cross-chain transfer from Unichain to Ethereum. This caused the adapter on the Ethereum side to release 116,500 rsETH without a corresponding burn on the Unichain side. Aave stated that the attack occurred on a third-party cross-chain bridge infrastructure. However, the attacker deposited the stolen rsETH into 8 Aave V3 positions, borrowing 82,650 WETH and 821 wstETH, which impacted the Aave market.Aave stated that the attacker's rsETH on Arbitrum has now been burned. The LayerZero OFT adapter has replenished 116,131.72 rsETH in 5 batches, and the asset backing for rsETH has been fully restored. The affected WETH and rsETH markets have returned to normal.
Blockaid disclosed on X that the Alephium TokenBridge Ethereum cross-chain bridge was attacked. The attacker compromised three out of four Guardian private keys, forged a Verified Action Approval (VAA) message, and executed the attack within approximately seven minutes, stealing roughly $815,000 worth of assets. During the attack, the attacker minted 13.76 million Wrapped ALPH tokens out of thin air—exceeding the pre-attack circulating supply by over 100%—and simultaneously unlocked and withdrew assets including USDT, USDC, WBTC, and WETH from the custody pool. As of now, the attacker’s address still holds approximately $815,000 in stolen assets and 13.76 million uncollateralized Wrapped ALPH tokens; the largest anomalous transaction involved the out-of-thin-air minting of 13.76 million Wrapped ALPH tokens.
SUPERFORTUNE AI released a 24-hour investigation update stating that the May 27 GUA security incident was not, as previously suspected, address poisoning—but rather resulted from the leakage of private keys belonging to multi-signature signers. The attacker then forged valid signatures pointing to a malicious address and exploited the “premium address” feature—where the malicious address shared the same first four and last four characters as the legitimate address—to mislead the remaining signers into completing the signing process via the Safe interface.
According to on-chain analyst PeckShield (@PeckShieldAlert), StakeDAO (@StakeDAOHQ) on the Arbitrum network was exploited via an infinite minting vulnerability. The attacker minted a total of 5.4 trillion vsdCRV tokens, then swapped a portion of them for 43.781 ETH (approximately $91,200) and bridged the funds cross-chain to the Ethereum address 0xeF3C...aa25.
StakeDAO deployer's private key leaked on Arbitrum, attacker mints approximately 5.45 trillion vsdCRV and exchanges for ETH.
According to Cointelegraph, phishing ads impersonating the decentralized exchange protocol Uniswap have appeared in Google search results, enabling attackers to steal at least $400,000. On-chain analyst b-block stated that the associated counterfeit websites are draining funds from multiple wallets; the implicated addresses currently hold a combined total of 146 ETH—worth approximately $306,000 at press time. Security Alliance (SEAL) noted that such fraudulent Google ads are a common source of phishing attacks, with attackers either purchasing ad placements or compromising legitimate advertising accounts to impersonate popular crypto protocols in sponsored search results. SEAL also reported that between March 13 and March 30, these attacks resulted in total losses amounting to $1.27 million.
Cosine, founder of SlowMist, posted an analysis of the Squid security incident on X. He stated that sampling revealed all affected Safe wallets were single-signature, with different owners—but the issue was not related to private keys. Rather, the vulnerability lay in the module shown in the image (SquidRouterModule) used by these Safe addresses. Attackers could forge messages and easily bypass relevant validations to initiate subsequent swap operations, thereby draining funds from the targeted Safe wallets. Additionally, Cosine disclosed the attacker’s profit accumulation address. Earlier reports indicated that a third-party Gnosis Safe module was exploited on Base and Ethereum, causing approximately $3.2 million in losses. The victims were 86 Gnosis Safe wallets that had added this contract as a trusted Safe Module. The contract is named “SquidRouterModule” on Basescan. Subsequently, Squid clarified that it was not impacted by the Gnosis Safe-related vulnerability incident.
Odaily news Squid posted on X platform, stating that this incident is unrelated to the Squid core protocol and contracts. All Squid users and integrators are unaffected and no action is required.Today, a third-party Gnosis Safe module on the Base and Ethereum networks was attacked, resulting in a loss of approximately $3.2 million. The vulnerable contract is verified on Basescan under the name "SquidRouterModule," but this contract was not built, deployed, or operated by Squid. It is a third-party smart wallet product that chose to integrate with Squid and other protocols, and has no connection with Squid.The attack principle is that this third-party module accepts a constant string provided by the caller as a message security proof. This string is publicly visible in the verified contract code. By inputting this string, the attacker could execute arbitrary calldata arrays and freely steal funds. The victim's Safe wallet had added this problematic contract as a trusted Safe Module, allowing the contract to control any tokens within the Safe without requiring a signature. Squid's own router contract (0xce16...D666) has a different architecture and was unaffected. Squid users' funds, authorizations, and integrations are completely safe.Early public reports may have mentioned "SquidRouter" due to the contract verification name on Basescan. The accurate description should be: a third-party SquidRouterModule was attacked, not Squid's Router contract. This contract shares the name with Squid, but it is not Squid's code. Squid is continuously monitoring the situation and will provide updates if there are any significant changes.