Artículos Relacionados con Multisig

El Centro de Noticias de HTX ofrece los artículos más recientes y un análisis profundo sobre "Multisig", cubriendo tendencias del mercado, actualizaciones de proyectos, desarrollos tecnológicos y políticas regulatorias en la industria de cripto.

DeFi Has Reached Its Most Dangerous Moment: The Real Vulnerabilities Are Not in the Code

DeFi in Peril: The Real Vulnerability Isn't in the Code April 2026 marked a paradigm shift in DeFi security, with over $625 million lost across 30 incidents—the worst month in crypto history by event count. Crucially, none of the major exploits (Drift Protocol: $285M, KelpDAO: $292M, Wasabi Protocol: $4.5M) resulted from smart contract vulnerabilities. Instead, failures occurred in the operational "plumbing": social engineering to compromise multi-signature councils, a single-point-of-failure 1-of-1 bridge validator, and stolen admin private keys. These events expose a fundamental misalignment: the industry's security model has long focused on code audits, while the actual attack surface has shifted to privileged access points and off-chain infrastructure. The article introduces the term "OpenFi" to describe this reality: permissionless, on-chain, yet operationally dependent on trusted third parties (admins, validators, oracles) at key junctures. The KelpDAO exploit vividly demonstrated asymmetric "contagion risk." A configuration error in a smaller protocol triggered a panic, causing approximately $13.2 billion in outflows from larger, unaffected protocols like Aave within 48 hours, as users fled uncertain collateral. The core dilemma is the double-edged sword of centralization. Operational levers like emergency councils (e.g., Arbitrum freezing stolen funds post-KelpDAO) enable crisis response but also create catastrophic attack surfaces if compromised (e.g., Drift). The path forward demands radical honesty: protocols must clearly disclose their trust assumptions, operational levers, and failure modes. The industry must treat operational security (key management, configurations, incident response) with the same rigor as code security. Survival depends on building systems whose risks can be understood, priced, and insured, moving beyond the outdated "code is law" mantra to a mature model of disclosed and managed trust.

链捕手05/25 15:17

DeFi Has Reached Its Most Dangerous Moment: The Real Vulnerabilities Are Not in the Code

链捕手05/25 15:17

Understanding Bound in One Article: The "Multi-signature + Timelock" Escape Mechanism and the Off-Chain Matching Black Box

**Title**: Understanding Bound: The Escape Mechanism of "Multi-Sig + Time Lock" and the Off-Chain Matching Black Box **Summary**: Bound Exchange, evolved from the earlier radFi platform, introduces a novel approach to Bitcoin trading by combining self-custody security with exchange-like speed. Its core mechanism relies on a 2-of-2 multi-signature (multi-sig) address for user deposits. One private key is held by the user via a passkey, and the other is held by Bound. This setup requires both keys to sign any transaction, preventing Bound from unilaterally accessing user funds (non-custodial). To address the risk of Bound becoming unavailable, a 3-month timelock is integrated into the Bitcoin script. After this period, users can withdraw their assets with just their single signature, ensuring an escape hatch. For trading, Bound operates a concentrated liquidity AMM. However, as Bitcoin L1 lacks smart contracts, the AMM curve, liquidity management, and trade price calculations occur off-chain in Bound's backend database. On-chain Bitcoin transactions serve only as final settlement receipts for pre-determined amounts. This creates a centralization point: the critical sequence of trade execution—which determines the exact price along the curve for each order—is managed off-chain by Bound in a non-transparent "black box." While the 2-of-2 setup protects user本金 (principal), the pricing and ordering of trades introduce potential operational MEV risks, as the order processing is invisible and unverifiable on-chain. In practice, users can also connect external wallets (like Unisat) for fully self-custodied trading, but this requires manually signing every transaction. The platform currently supports deposits of BTC and Runes only.

marsbit05/25 09:11

Understanding Bound in One Article: The "Multi-signature + Timelock" Escape Mechanism and the Off-Chain Matching Black Box

marsbit05/25 09:11

In-Depth Reconstruction of the $285 Million Drift Hack: How Should DeFi Governance Move Beyond "Amateur Hour"?

On April 1, 2026, Drift Protocol, the largest perpetual futures DEX on Solana, suffered a catastrophic hack resulting in a loss of $285 million. The attack, attributed to a sophisticated social engineering campaign rather than a technical exploit, unfolded over several months. Hackers first infiltrated Drift’s internal circles by posing as a legitimate market maker, building trust over time. They then exploited Solana’s "Durable Nonce" feature to trick core team members into blindly signing transactions that granted administrative control. A critical vulnerability was introduced when Drift migrated to a 2/5 multisig structure without a timelock, allowing instant execution of privileged transactions with just two signatures. The attackers finally triggered the attack by adding a fake token (CVT) to the whitelist, manipulating its oracle price, and using it as collateral to drain the protocol’s treasury. The incident highlights fundamental flaws in DeFi governance, including overreliance on multisig mechanisms that lack intent verification and are vulnerable to social engineering. It underscores the misalignment between retail-grade security tools and institutional-scale treasury management. The hack signals the need for a security paradigm shift in DeFi, including adoption of Hardware Security Modules (HSMs) for key management, intent-based policy engines for transaction validation, and professional third-party custody solutions to ensure institutional-grade safety.

marsbit04/13 12:00

In-Depth Reconstruction of the $285 Million Drift Hack: How Should DeFi Governance Move Beyond "Amateur Hour"?

marsbit04/13 12:00

The Bitcoin Inheritance Challenge: How to Help Your Family Recover Your Assets?

Self-custody of Bitcoin fundamentally changes estate planning. A robust inheritance plan must protect assets during the owner’s lifetime while ensuring designated individuals can recover them after death. Bitcoin’s key advantage—bypassing banks and custodians—also complicates inheritance, as the network only recognizes cryptographic keys, not legal documents. Key challenges include balancing security and accessibility, managing technical complexity for non-expert heirs, preserving privacy, and ensuring long-term viability. Common solutions include: 1. Custodial Inheritance: Relies on exchanges or institutions, sacrificing self-custody benefits for familiar legal processes. 2. DIY Inheritance: Ranges from simple seed-phrase handovers to complex multisig setups. High autonomy but requires technical competence from heirs. 3. Assisted Custody: Uses a service provider for multisig setup and recovery guidance, improving usability but depending on the provider’s longevity. 4. On-Chain Collaborative Inheritance: Combines assisted recovery with on-chain fallbacks (e.g., timelocks), ensuring access even if the provider fails. The strongest plans integrate a smooth, guided recovery path with a durable on-chain backup. Regular testing and updates are crucial. Inheritance isn’t just a technical issue—it must align with legal frameworks and family circumstances. Ultimately, a well-designed Bitcoin inheritance plan ensures assets remain secure, private, and recoverable for generations.

比推03/18 12:38

The Bitcoin Inheritance Challenge: How to Help Your Family Recover Your Assets?

比推03/18 12:38

活动图片