Cardano Founder Warns KelpDAO Hack Exposes Ethereum’s Weakest Link

bitcoinistPublished on 2026-04-22Last updated on 2026-04-22

Abstract

Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson argues that the $292 million KelpDAO exploit reveals a critical systemic flaw in Ethereum's DeFi ecosystem, rather than just a simple bridge failure. He emphasizes that the core issue was not a smart contract vulnerability, but a failure in cross-chain message verification. Specifically, a single-verifier setup allowed a forged message to be accepted, leading to the theft of 116,500 rsETH. Hoskinson warns that the attack’s true danger emerged when the stolen assets were used as collateral in lending markets, creating widespread bad debt contagion and triggering a liquidity crisis that caused up to $13 billion in withdrawals across multiple protocols. He calls for a broader industry discussion on bridge security and verifier design to prevent similar systemic risks.

Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson used his latest livestream to argue that the roughly $292 million KelpDAO exploit was not just another bridge failure, but a broader warning about how Ethereum’s restaking, cross-chain messaging, and lending stack can turn a single compromise into system-wide contagion.

In Hoskinson’s telling, the April 18 attack exposed what he sees as the most fragile part of modern DeFi: not necessarily application-level smart contracts, but the verification layers and interdependencies that sit between protocols. He said the exploit, which involved about 116,500 rsETH drained from KelpDAO’s Ethereum escrow, should force a wider industry conversation about bridge trust assumptions, verifier design, and the speed at which bad collateral can spread through lending markets.

Cardano Founder Warns Of Dangerous Flaw At The Heart Of Ethereum DeFi

Rather than deliver a standard postmortem, Hoskinson said he took internal incident-report material and used AI to turn it into a website that walked viewers through the mechanics of the exploit. That structure framed his larger point: the failure, as he described it, did not begin with broken contract math inside KelpDAO itself, nor with an obvious accounting flaw at LayerZero. Instead, he said it centered on a forged cross-chain message that was accepted as legitimate and allowed funds to be released on Ethereum.

“So, this was not a smart contract issue with Kelp and this was not a smart contract issue with LayerZero, but this was a cross-chain message forgery,” Hoskinson said. “So this was something new and different.”

The Cardano founder repeatedly returned to one design choice in particular: the reported use of a one-of-one verifier configuration. In his explanation, best practice would be a multi-verifier model such as three-of-five, but KelpDAO’s setup relied on a single active DVN. That, he argued, created an unacceptable single point of failure in a system already layered with staking wrappers, restaking protocols, bridges, and lending venues.

“The failure was in the verification logic, not the application logic,” he said. “Kelp did everything right from their contracts. They’re audited. They’re working well. The application’s working well. It’s the bridge configuration.”
Hoskinson also emphasized that the industry still lacks a settled account of exactly where responsibility lies.

According to his summary, three separate root-cause analyses emerged after the exploit: one from LayerZero, one from KelpDAO, and one tied to LlamaRisk and Aave governance discussions but none fully agree. That leaves open whether the break occurred in the messaging layer, verifier setup, KelpDAO’s acceptance logic, or in the seams between them.

What made the event especially significant, in his view, was not only the theft itself but what happened next. Instead of dumping the stolen rsETH on decentralized exchanges, the attacker allegedly used it as collateral in lending markets to borrow more liquid assets. That turned an exploit into a balance-sheet problem for other protocols, leaving what Hoskinson described as poisoned collateral behind.

He called that dynamic the real novelty of the incident. “It wasn’t just a bridge hack. It spread to lending which then created bad debt contagion inside these lending protocols. It created a bank run and we saw $13 billion of TVL pulled in a very short period of time for a $290 million hack.”

The Cardano founder said the broader DeFi liquidity shock reached far beyond KelpDAO itself. Citing public reporting referenced in his walkthrough, he pointed to at least nine directly affected protocols and said Aave alone saw between $6.6 billion and $8.45 billion in losses, while rsETH traded in a volatile range between about $1,600 and $2,500 during the 24 hours following the attack.

He also raised the possibility of Lazarus involvement, though he acknowledged attribution remains unconfirmed. “There’s a lot of evidence here that there’s Lazarus connections,” he said, before adding that no independent forensics firms had definitively proven it.

At press time, Cardano (ADA) traded at $0.2504.

Cardano hovers below key resistance, 1-monthly chart | Source: ADAUSDT on TradingView.com

Trending Cryptos

Related Questions

QWhat did Charles Hoskinson argue was the broader warning exposed by the KelpDAO exploit?

AHe argued that the exploit was a broader warning about how Ethereum's restaking, cross-chain messaging, and lending stack can turn a single compromise into system-wide contagion.

QAccording to Hoskinson, what was the specific technical failure that led to the KelpDAO exploit?

AThe failure was a cross-chain message forgery that was accepted as legitimate, not a smart contract issue with KelpDAO or LayerZero.

QWhat dangerous design choice did Hoskinson specifically criticize in the system's setup?

AHe criticized the use of a one-of-one verifier configuration, arguing that a multi-verifier model (like three-of-five) is a best practice to avoid a single point of failure.

QHow did the attacker allegedly use the stolen rsETH to create a wider contagion in the DeFi ecosystem?

AInstead of dumping it, the attacker used the stolen rsETH as collateral in lending markets to borrow more liquid assets, which turned the exploit into a balance-sheet problem and created bad debt contagion for other protocols.

QWhat was the estimated total value locked (TVL) that was pulled from protocols following the hack, according to Hoskinson's account?

AApproximately $13 billion of TVL was pulled in a very short period of time following the $290 million hack.

Related Reads

Vitalik's Algorithmic Stablecoin Vision: Interpreting the Mechanism and Challenges from an Options Perspective

Vitalik Buterin's recent algorithmic stablecoin proposal envisions using an option-like mechanism to create a stablecoin without the liquidation risks inherent in traditional collateralized debt position (CDP) models. The design splits one unit of ETH into two components: a 'stable' leg (P) that maintains value up to a certain strike price, and an 'upside' leg (N) that captures any appreciation above that price. Together, they always sum to one ETH, eliminating the need for debt or liquidation mechanisms. From an options perspective, the stable leg essentially functions as a synthetic, covered call position. However, significant challenges exist. For the stable asset to maintain its peg, it must continuously roll deep in-the-money call options, leading to potential rollover slippage, predictable trading paths vulnerable to front-running, and liquidity issues. Crucially, the system's scalability depends on a constant demand for the upside leg—a form of leveraged ETH long position without funding rates or liquidation risk. It's unclear if such persistent, specific demand will materialize from speculators or market makers who have simpler alternatives like perpetual swaps. The author, drawing from experience with Rysk, argues that DeFi options have struggled as standalone trading products due to complexity and fragmented liquidity. Their potential lies instead as foundational infrastructure underpinning more complex financial primitives like stablecoins, structured yields, or index products—transforming from a direct product into a core pricing and risk distribution engine for the next generation of on-chain finance.

marsbit1h ago

Vitalik's Algorithmic Stablecoin Vision: Interpreting the Mechanism and Challenges from an Options Perspective

marsbit1h ago

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

In mid-June, three seemingly independent industry events—the compliance-driven throttling of Fable 5, the open-sourcing of GLM-5.2, and the leaked release timeline for GPT-5.6—are pushing the global AI industry toward a watershed moment. These shifts signal a fundamental restructuring of the industry's underlying logic. First, **"usability" has substantially overtaken "advanced capabilities"** as the primary weight, pushing the global large language model (LLM) supply chain into a "dual-track" phase of controlled closed-source and local open-source coexistence. Second, **the competitive moats of closed-source giants are shifting**. Their technical focus is moving from "language intelligence" toward "spatial intelligence (world models)"—a domain heavily reliant on computing power. Third, faced with常态化 transnational compliance risks, **a "model-agnostic" decoupled design has become a survival necessity for application-layer developers to maintain business continuity.** The article details how Anthropic's Fable 5, despite its advanced engineering feats, was restricted for non-U.S. citizens within 72 hours of launch, highlighting how geopolitical compliance can instantly limit even the most advanced models. In response, the open-source camp, exemplified by Zhipu AI's MIT-licensed GLM-5.2, is gaining market share by offering stable performance improvements and significant cost advantages (up to 70% savings for enterprises), while achieving full adaptation with domestic semiconductor platforms. Meanwhile, closed-source leaders like OpenAI are pivoting. The anticipated GPT-5.6 reportedly shifts focus from language to spatial intelligence and world models, aiming to rebuild a generational gap in areas like 3D understanding, simulation, and industrial design that demand immense compute. The core conclusion is that the LLM supply chain's logic has changed. Enterprises must now evaluate infrastructure based on a composite of technical performance and policy compliance. For developers, complete reliance on a single closed-source API poses unacceptable risk. Implementing a truly model-agnostic architecture—enabling swift switches to compliant, locally deployable open-source alternatives—is no longer just good practice but a fundamental baseline for business continuity.

marsbit3h ago

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

marsbit3h ago

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

The article discusses the ongoing "token subsidy war" among AI giants like OpenAI and Anthropic, questioning whether it's nearing its end. It reveals that current AI subscription prices are heavily subsidized, with some plans offering tokens at up to 70 times the actual cost to attract and retain heavy users, especially developers and enterprises. This strategy mirrors past internet-era subsidy battles, but with a key difference: AI tokens lack "lock-in" effects. Unlike ride-hailing or food delivery apps, users can easily switch between AI providers as APIs become standardized, making it difficult for companies to raise prices post-subsidy. The piece highlights a structural asymmetry in the competition. Giants like Google, with massive advertising revenue, can afford to subsidize tokens indefinitely, akin to using "tokens as a weapon." In contrast, venture-backed companies like OpenAI and Anthropic face pressure to become profitable, especially as they approach IPO. The article cites Google Ventures founder Bill Maris, who suggests Google could slash token prices by 80%, putting immense pressure on competitors. Two potential endgames are presented: the "internet service" model (subsidize, monopolize, then raise prices) and the "utility" model (tokens become a standardized, low-margin commodity like electricity). Given the low switching costs, the latter seems more likely. The competition may not have a single winner but could instead accelerate AI's evolution into a foundational, infrastructure-level technology, akin to a public utility. For now, users continue to benefit from heavily subsidized token costs.

marsbit4h ago

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

marsbit4h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures

Hot Articles

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of S (S) are presented below.

活动图片