# Negligence Related Articles

HTX News Center provides the latest articles and in-depth analysis on "Negligence", covering market trends, project updates, tech developments, and regulatory policies in the crypto industry.

$292 Million KelpDAO Cross-Chain Bridge Hack: Who Should Foot the Bill?

On April 18, 2026, an attacker stole 116,500 rsETH (worth ~$292M) from KelpDAO’s cross-chain bridge in 46 minutes—the largest DeFi exploit of 2026. The stolen assets were deposited into Aave V3 as collateral, causing $177–200M in bad debt and triggering a cascade of losses across nine DeFi protocols. Aave’s TVL dropped by ~$6B overnight. This legal analysis argues that KelpDAO and LayerZero Labs share concurrent liability, with fault apportioned 60%/40%. KelpDAO negligently configured its bridge with a 1-of-1 decentralized verifier network (DVN)—a single point of failure—despite LayerZero’s explicit recommendation of a 2-of-3 setup. LayerZero, which operated the compromised DVN, failed to secure its RPC infrastructure against a known poisoning attack vector. Both protocols’ terms of service cap liability at $200 (KelpDAO) or $50 (LayerZero), but these limits are likely unenforceable due to unconscionability, gross negligence exceptions, and potential securities law invalidation (if rsETH is deemed a security under the Howey test). Aave’s governance also faces fiduciary duty claims for raising rsETH’s loan-to-value ratio to 93%—far above competitors’ 72–75%—without adequately assessing bridge risks, amplifying the systemic fallout. Practical recovery targets include LayerZero Labs (a registered Canadian entity), KelpDAO’s founders, auditors, and identifiable Aave governance delegates. The incident underscores escalating legal risks for DeFi protocols, infrastructure providers, and governance participants.

marsbit04/24 06:25

$292 Million KelpDAO Cross-Chain Bridge Hack: Who Should Foot the Bill?

marsbit04/24 06:25

Crypto Shockwave: Circle Sued As $280 Million Drift Hack Unravels

A class action lawsuit has been filed in a Massachusetts federal court against Circle Internet Financial, alleging the stablecoin issuer was negligent and aided in the theft of $280 million from the Drift Protocol. The plaintiffs, representing over 100 investors, argue Circle had the means to stop the stolen USDC from being moved across blockchains using its Cross-Chain Transfer Protocol but failed to act. They point to Circle's prior action of freezing wallets in a separate civil case as proof it could have intervened. The April 1st hack is attributed to North Korean state-backed actors who moved the funds to Ethereum and laundered them through Tornado Cash. The case raises significant questions about the responsibility of centralized entities in the decentralized crypto ecosystem.

bitcoinist04/17 18:31

Crypto Shockwave: Circle Sued As $280 Million Drift Hack Unravels

bitcoinist04/17 18:31

Drift Protocol incident uncovered: Did ‘negligence’ lead to the $285M loss?

Drift Protocol's $285 million hack underscores a critical industry lesson: security cannot be sacrificed for scalability. This incident, potentially linked to the same group behind the 2024 Radiant Capital hack, reveals a meticulously planned attack where perpetrators posed as a legitimate firm to gain trust. In response, Drift froze protocol functions and collaborated with law enforcement, though market confidence remained shaken. The timing is significant, as Solana recently tested quantum-resistant upgrades that slowed the network by 90%, highlighting the inherent trade-offs between security and performance. Public scrutiny has intensified, with some labeling the breach "civil negligence," signaling a shift in the 2026 cycle toward prioritizing security, accountability, and quantum-threat preparedness over mere scalability.

ambcrypto04/06 20:17

Drift Protocol incident uncovered: Did ‘negligence’ lead to the $285M loss?

ambcrypto04/06 20:17

活动图片

Bitcoinright-arrow

Regulatory Policyright-arrow