从 zkSync 到 LayerZero:女巫攻击会侵蚀项目,没有人希望看到虚假的社区

深潮Published on 2024-07-26Last updated on 2024-07-26

大多数通过空投启动的团队需要加倍努力,重新吸引那些由虚假活动推动的显著价格投机和网络活动。

作者:Builders

编译:深潮TechFlow

代币发行是一个项目历史上的关键时刻。如果搞砸了代币发行,项目可能就此终结。

没有什么比女巫攻击更能迅速摧毁代币发行的信誉了。在这种攻击中,恶意行为者创建多个虚假身份,试图在网络中获得不成比例的影响力和代币分配。

没有人希望看到一个虚假的社区。

接下来,我们将通过两个最近的空投案例:zkSync 和 LayerZero,来探讨女巫攻击如何影响代币发行。

zkSync

zkSync 是一个使用零知识证明的以太坊 Layer 2 扩展解决方案,曾是 2024 年最受期待的空投之一。然而,由于缺乏女巫防范措施,它受到了不少批评。例如,Polygon Labs 的首席信息安全官 Mudit Gupta 在 X 上评论道:

  zkSync 的空投已经发布。

  这可能是有史以来最容易被“农场”的空投。

  据我所知,几乎没有进行 Sybil 过滤。

  任何了解标准的人都可以轻松大量获取。

  这让人更加理解 LayerZero 在 Sybil 过滤方面所做的努力。

Cinneamhain Ventures 的合伙人 Adam Cochran 也表达了类似的担忧

  我很喜欢 zkSync 的团队,但从 Sybil 防范的角度来看,这次空投计划得确实不太好。

  这些标准对真实用户来说很容易错过,而对“农场”用户来说却很容易达成,而且没有任何反 Sybil 措施。

  在链上项目如此新且项目数量有限的情况下,真实用户可能只会使用 1-2 个 dapp 或持有少量代币。

  如果项目不想要那些快速抛售的“投机者”,就需要在这方面多花些心思。

zkSync 的网络活动

在 2024 年 6 月 17 日 zkSync 空投给用户后的一个月内(截至 2024 年 7 月 17 日),网络上的活跃地址数量减少了约 78.7%。这表明,大部分用户只是为了获取空投,随后便放弃了该项目。

来源:Dune

每日存款者数量也显示了类似的趋势——在 2024 年 7 月 17 日,仅有 32 个存款者,而在 2023 年 3 月 25 日的峰值为 41,257。

来源:Nansen

空投之后,超过 40% 的 zkSync 主要接收者出售了全部分配的代币,41.4% 出售了部分分配。目前,这些主要接收者中只有 17.9% 仍持有他们的代币。根据 @CryptusChrist 的数据,746 名已知的女巫攻击者在空投中获得了约 690 万美元的 ZK 代币。

来源:Nansen

ZK 价格走势

不幸的是,ZK 的抛售——很可能是由女巫攻击者策划的——加剧了市场的卖压,导致代币价格在用户空投日期(2024 年 6 月 17 日)到 2024 年 7 月 23 日之间大约下降了 39.29%。

来源:CoinGecko

那么,zkSync 到底出了什么问题?首先,团队的空投资格标准相对容易被女巫攻击者利用,并且缺乏有效的女巫防范措施。此外,zkSync 还排除了某些合法用户,例如那些在 zkSync ERA 上构建并直接为其生态系统做出贡献的项目。

现在,他们的团队需要加倍努力,重新吸引那些被女巫攻击者虚假活动所驱动的显著价格投机。

LayerZero

LayerZero 是一个旨在促进不同区块链之间无缝通信和资产转移的互操作性协议,与上述两个例子不同,LayerZero 实施了强有力的女巫防范措施。

根据 LayerZero Labs 的首席执行官 Bryan Pellegrino 的说法,团队在女巫自我报告和分析阶段最终识别出110 万到 130 万个独特的女巫钱包,并且他们的团队继续参与并奖励社区报告女巫攻击者。

LayerZero 的网络活动

在 2024 年 4 月 30 日(快照日期的前一天)到 2024 年 7 月 7 日之间,LayerZero 上的消息数量下降了 91.5%。

来源:LayerZero Scan

同样,每日交易数量在快照日期和空投日期之间也下降了超过 92%。

来源:Dune

这种下降部分是因为用户在快照日期之后通常停止活动,因为他们不再需要交易以获得空投资格。然而,上述团队的女巫防范方法也可能影响了这一下降,使他们能够在更少的女巫攻击者的情况下进行空投。

ZRO 价格走势

从 2024 年 6 月 20 日(空投日期)到 2024 年 7 月 18 日,LayerZero 的原生代币 ZRO 的价格从 $4.79 下降到 $4,约下降了 16%。这一降幅显著低于 ZK 在相似时间段内的 39% 下降。值得注意的是,尽管 LayerZero 的网络活动有所下降,但 ZRO 的价格最终超过了其初始上市价格。

来源:CoinGecko

虽然很难确定 LayerZero 价格相对稳定的所有因素,但其女巫防范技术可能起到了作用。

为什么建设者应该关心女巫防范?

在短期内,女巫攻击可能看起来对项目有利,因为它们可以人为地提升数据并产生即时利润。

然而,如上述例子所示,引入女巫攻击可能导致代币抛压和网络活动下降——这两者都会侵蚀项目的长期可持续性。

当女巫攻击者被移除时,合法参与者有更多机会参与和贡献,因为欺诈实体的移除释放了宝贵的位置。

大多数通过空投启动的团队需要加倍努力,重新吸引那些由虚假活动推动的显著价格投机和网络活动。没有人希望看到一个虚假的社区。

Related Reads

Glue Finance Founder: ETH Has Entered a Phase of Non-Consensus, an Inflection Point Is Coming

"Glue Finance founder argues Ethereum's current price underperformance stems from its 'unfinished machine' status. Despite record usage and settlement value in 2026, ETH remains below its 2021 peak because the protocol's continued development creates a dependency on the Ethereum Foundation for guidance and fixes. Key issues include centralized L2 sequencers, governance-based freezes (as seen with Arbitrum), state bloat, a vulnerable public mempool, and looming quantum computing threats. This 'dependency discount' prevents ETH from accruing the 'ossification premium' that markets award to immutable, trustless systems like Bitcoin. The author, a self-described Ethereum maximalist, rejects two flawed escape paths: a 'war mode' shift towards centralization for speed (which would sacrifice Ethereum's core value), or simply replacing the EF with another governing body. The only solution is the 'Manhattan Plan' or 'Lean Ethereum': a concerted, accelerated effort to complete and then *freeze* the protocol's neutral core. This involves finalizing critical upgrades in consensus (Lean Consensus), scaling (targeting 1 trillion gas/sec), quantum resistance (leanXMSS signatures), and full ZK-provable execution. The goal is to pass the 'walk-away test'—where Ethereum could run forever, neutrally, without the EF. Success would transform Ethereum into the first programmable, quantum-resistant, immutable global settlement layer, flipping its current discount into a unique 'eternity premium' that surpasses Bitcoin's. Failure—stagnation or trading neutrality for speed—would relegate it to being a slower, less trustworthy competitor."

marsbit8m ago

Glue Finance Founder: ETH Has Entered a Phase of Non-Consensus, an Inflection Point Is Coming

marsbit8m ago

Glue Finance Founder: ETH Has Entered a Phase of Non-Consensus, an Inflection Point Is Approaching

Glue Finance founder argues that Ethereum's current price underperformance, despite high on-chain activity, stems from its incomplete state and lingering dependency on central stewards like the Ethereum Foundation. The core thesis is that the market is discounting ETH not for lack of use, but because the protocol remains a "machine under construction." Key unresolved issues include centralized L2 sequencers with limited escape hatches, state bloat, vulnerable public mempools, and the looming quantum computing threat. This perpetual "work-in-progress" status forces reliance on a small group of maintainers, undermining the network's promise of credible neutrality and immutability. The author, a self-described Ethereum maximalist, rejects two flawed paths: a "wartime mode" of centralizing for speed (surrendering Ethereum's unique value) or merely replacing the Foundation with another governing entity. The only solution is to complete and then "freeze" the protocol's neutral core through a focused "Manhattan Project" dubbed "Lean Ethereum." This project aims to bundle critical upgrades—consensus layer overhaul, massive scaling via ZK-proofs, quantum resistance, and statelessness—into a decisive push to finalize the base layer. Once the core rules are cryptographically solidified and beyond anyone's control (passing the "walk-away test"), Ethereum would shed its dependency discount and earn a "rigidity premium" for its credible neutrality and programmability, potentially surpassing Bitcoin's valuation. The race is between completing this hardening and the risks of protocol capture or stagnation.

链捕手9m ago

Glue Finance Founder: ETH Has Entered a Phase of Non-Consensus, an Inflection Point Is Approaching

链捕手9m ago

Hackers Steal Nearly $17 Million in 40 Days as 'Zombie Contracts' Become Their ATMs

According to an analysis published by ZeroDrift on June 22, 2026, attackers have stolen approximately $16.9 million over 40 days from five deprecated but still operational smart contracts across various blockchains. The primary issue is not a specific vulnerability but the incomplete decommissioning of legacy contracts. These "zombie contracts" often retain economic value, operational permissions, and callable functions, making them prime targets long after teams cease active development. The most significant loss occurred at DxSale, where an old locker contract lost about $7.3 million due to a forgotten control path becoming accessible again. Other affected projects include TrustedVolumes (~$5.87M), Raydium's legacy AMM pool (~$1.34M), Aztec Connect (~$2.28M), and Huma Finance V1 pool (~$101k). These incidents involved diverse systems—RFQ settlement, credit pools, liquidity lockers, AMMs—demonstrating the widespread nature of the risk. The analysis highlights that automated tools are lowering the cost for attackers to systematically scan for these long-tail targets, which have public code and weaker monitoring. In contrast, defensive practices for contract retirement remain underdeveloped. While the DeFi industry has mature audit processes for new deployments, it lacks strict protocols for securely sunsetting old contracts, which only become truly "retired" after all funds, permissions, authorizations, and trust assumptions are removed.

marsbit1h ago

Hackers Steal Nearly $17 Million in 40 Days as 'Zombie Contracts' Become Their ATMs

marsbit1h ago

Valuation Rout of Old Titans: The Demise of a Generation's Asset Valuation Framework

"The Old Titans' Valuation Collapse: The Death of an Era's Valuation Framework" Between Alibaba's 2014 NYSE debut at $93.89 and its 2026 price of ~$95, twelve years have passed with zero price appreciation. This stagnation symbolizes a wholesale valuation reset for an entire generation of Chinese internet assets. Companies like Tencent, Pinduoduo, Meituan, Bilibili, and Kuaishou have seen catastrophic declines of 80-98% from their peaks. The core question arises: what framework now prices these companies, or has the framework itself expired? The valuation logic for Chinese internet stocks followed a clear "anchor-setting and anchor-removing" process. From 2014-2017, the dominant narrative was "US comparable discounting" – applying a growth premium and governance discount to US peers' multiples. This anchor loosened with the 2018 US-China trade war and the VIE structure risk, then was violently uprooted by the 2020-2021 regulatory crackdowns (Ant Group, Didi, anti-monopoly fines). The 2022 delisting panic and subsequent 2025-2026 geopolitical shocks (US military lists, AI espionage accusations) completed the demolition. The old "US对标打折" model is dead. However, this is not solely a China story. A structural mirror exists in US "old titan" stocks ("老登股"). In 2026, even Microsoft – with robust fundamentals – saw its PE compress from a 34x median to 22x, its worst performer status among the "Magnificent Seven" driven by a $190 billion annual AI capex crushing free cash flow. The core dilemma is universal: legacy platform giants, whether Alibaba or Microsoft, are spending colossal sums to chase an AI paradigm that may颠覆 their own high-margin, user/subscription-based business models. They have shifted from "companies defining the future" to "companies needing to prove they won't be淘汰ed by the future." This phenomenon of a dying valuation坐标系 has a historical precedent: post-1989 Japan. After its bubble burst, the "Japan premium" narrative ("most efficient manufacturing + perpetual growth") collapsed. A 25-year valuation vacuum ensued until Warren Buffett provided a new language in the 2010s: "low valuation + high dividend + governance reform." China's internet sector is now in a similar vacuum six years into its reset. While different from Japan's deflationary context, the parallel is clear: the old macro assumption of "deep integration with global capital" is falsified, but a new pricing framework is absent. Potential "new languages" for Chinese internet valuations are contradictory. AI transformation requires gutting profitable core businesses (e.g., Alibaba's ad-driven e-commerce) for an unproven consumption-based model, risking a Microsoft-like cash flow crunch. Alternatively, shareholder returns (buybacks/dividends) could build a floor, following Buffett's Japanese playbook, but current scales are insufficient to form a standalone anchor. The current state mirrors mid-1990s Japan: the old framework is dead, the new one unborn. The market waits in a vacuum for a重新定义ing force – a person, event, or proven business model shift – to answer "why buy." This may only be the middle phase of a prolonged re-rating.

marsbit1h ago

Valuation Rout of Old Titans: The Demise of a Generation's Asset Valuation Framework

marsbit1h ago

Trading

Spot
活动图片