Why The DeFi Sector Has Seen $1.57B In Exploits And Already Exceeds 2021 Record

BitcoinistPubblicato 2022-05-03Pubblicato ultima volta 2022-05-09

Introduzione

Per a report from blockchain security firm Peck Shield, the DeFi sector has been under attack with a profitable season...

Per a report from blockchain security firm Peck Shield, the DeFi sector has been under attack with a profitable season for bad actors. The total amount extracted from different crypto projects has already surpassed the total recorded last year.
The security firm claims that around $1,57 billion have been obtained from hackers and other bad actors over the past months. This represents a $400 million increase from the $1,55 billion stolen in 2021, as the chart below shows.

Ethereum DeFi

Source: Peck Shield The security firm registered the BeanstalkFarms, the Fei protocol, and Aku Dreams exploits as some of the worst in the DeFi sector. Almost $300 million have been stolen from these projects between January and April 2022.
Axie Infinity’s Ronin bridge was one of the worst in the entire crypto industry. Hackers managed to drain the project from over $600 million by exploiting a vulnerability within the platform’s nodes.
The sector has always been vulnerable to attacks due to its open-source nature, and because of the lack of deterrents for bad actors. Unlike stealing from a bank, a centralized exchange, or a traditional entity, taking money from DeFi protocols pays big with possibly no consequences.
As Bitcoin has been reporting, the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the U.S. Treasury Department, and other agencies alerted the industry of these attacks.
Per an official document, a rogue nation could be sponsoring bad actors to specifically target DeFi and crypto-based companies. These efforts are believed to be led by the organization called Lazarus Group, BlueNoroff, Stardust Chollima, APT38, and others.
These bad actors are using a variety of methods to exploit vulnerabilities across the space. Therefore, the uptrend in the number of attacks on the DeFi sector could continue.
example of the sneaky malicious emails and messages designed to trick you. mostly crypto / Lazarus / Bluenoroff / North Korean APT. 🎣 pic.twitter.com/m3w4fgpdIz
— Taylor Monahan 🦊💙 (@tayvano_) April 19, 2022

How To Protect Yourself From Future DeFi Hacks?
Despite the recent increase in these attacks in 2022, the bad actors seem to have been trying to target the industry for a while back. On November 23, 2021, cyber security firm Kaspersky released a report and warned about this trend.
Called “Cyberthreats to financial organizations in 2022”, the firm classified the industry as “attractive” for cybercrime groups. As transactions occurred online, these bad actors have a lot of incentives to target these projects. The firm said:
not only cybercrime groups but also state-sponsored groups who have already started targeting this industry. After the Bangladesh bank heist, the BlueNoroff group is still aggressively attacking the cryptocurrency business, and we anticipate this activity will continue.
In addition, the security firm predicts an increase in fake hardware wallets with backdoors to the user´s funds. Kaspersky believes there probably aren’t enough “reliable and transparent security assessments” to verify the safety of the projects or hardware in the crypto industry.
However, there are companies that provide their users with a variety of measures to, in the case of wallets, verify their legitimacy. Some DeFi projects also recommend their users to double-check if they are using the correct website, keep their private keys in lockdown on a secure location, and other measures to preserve their security.
At the time of writing, Ethereum (ETH) trades at $2,800 with sideways movement in the last day.

Ethereum ETH ETHUSD

ETH moving sideways on the 4-hour chart. Source: ETHUSD Tradingview

Letture associate

Won't US Stocks Ever Fall Again? The 'Great Melt-up' Trap in the Era of High Debt

The article analyzes a popular theory circulating online that the U.S. stock market may be mathematically incapable of a true, sustained decline due to the country's massive and growing national debt. The argument suggests that the government's only path to managing this debt is through inflation and money printing, which would nominally lift asset prices like stocks, creating a perpetual "melt-up." The author places this idea within the historical context of market melt-ups, such as the dot-com bubble and Japan's asset bubble, where prices detach from fundamentals driven by momentum and FOMO. While acknowledging that a high-debt environment creates incentives for inflation, which is generally favorable for assets over cash, the article refutes key claims of the online theory. It clarifies that interest payments are not about to exceed GDP, that printing money is not the only option for the government, and that stocks do not reliably rise in lockstep with hyperinflation, citing historical examples from Germany, Zimbabwe, and Venezuela. The more probable outcome, according to the author, is a prolonged period of financial repression—moderate inflation above interest rates that slowly erodes debt and cash purchasing power, leading to nominally higher asset prices but potentially lower real returns. The core warning is that while long-term market trends may be upward, this does not eliminate the risk of significant interim crashes (30%, 40%, or more) or guarantee real wealth creation during inflationary times. The conclusion advises against betting one's entire financial future on a smooth, perpetually rising market narrative. Instead, it recommends a disciplined, diversified strategy involving productive assets (stocks, real estate, some gold, short-term bonds) and an adequate cash buffer to avoid forced selling during downturns. The key takeaway is to avoid extreme concentration in expensive assets and leverage, and not to base investment decisions on the hope that every market dip will inevitably be rescued.

marsbit3 min fa

Won't US Stocks Ever Fall Again? The 'Great Melt-up' Trap in the Era of High Debt

marsbit3 min fa

The Fate of Digital Banks: No Fancy App Can Outshine a Banking License

The Fate of Digital Banks: A Flashy App is No Match for a Banking License The article argues that despite attracting billions of users with fee-free checking accounts and sleek apps, most "neobanks" struggle to be profitable because their core business—transaction fees—is inherently low-margin. The real profit engine of banking is lending (credit), which generates interest income. However, many early neobanks operated without their own banking licenses, which restricted their ability to lend at scale. Examples like Nubank, Revolut, and Chime illustrate the point. While they gained users with free accounts, their eventual profitability came from rolling out credit products. The piece highlights systemic risks for neobanks that rely on third-party infrastructure, citing the Synapse bankruptcy, which froze user funds and revealed the fragility of such models. The solution, according to the author, is obtaining a formal banking license, like the U.S. OCC's national trust charter. This provides regulatory backing, allows direct custody of funds, and eliminates dependency on intermediary partners. The trend is now evident in the crypto sector, where companies like Kraken, SoFi, and others are actively pursuing such licenses. The article concludes that while technology changes, the fundamental business logic of banking—profiting from lending—remains constant. Successful digital banks ultimately conform to this old model, just with better interfaces and fairer terms.

Foresight News11 min fa

The Fate of Digital Banks: No Fancy App Can Outshine a Banking License

Foresight News11 min fa

In the Name of Charity, For the Benefit of the Family: How the Trump Family Turns Philanthropy into Profit?

Charity for Profit: How the Trump Family Turned Philanthropy into Personal Gain Amid a recent controversy over misleading claims about his cryptocurrency company American Bitcoin, Eric Trump invoked his children's cancer charity as evidence of his good intentions. While his Curetivity foundation (formerly the Eric Trump Foundation) has donated over $25 million to St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, an investigation reveals a pattern of self-dealing and opaque practices that benefited the Trump family business. Internal documents show that from 2011 to 2016, over $500,000 from the charity was funneled back to Trump-owned properties for event costs, transactions often omitted from tax filings. This created clear conflicts of interest, with figures like former club manager and current White House aide Dan Scavino involved on both sides. Public claims of "one of the lowest expense ratios" were contradicted by records showing significant spending on entertainment, auctions, and transportation. Facing scrutiny in 2017, Eric Trump distanced himself from the board and rebranded the foundation. After a state investigation shifted focus to compliance rather than enforcement, he returned as the public face. Fundraising events, now less transparent, continue at Trump venues. Estimates suggest these events have directed over $1 million to the Trump Organization over two decades. The same playbook of optimistic claims and obscured financial realities is now evident in Eric Trump's role at American Bitcoin. He promoted it as a highly profitable venture with low mining costs, but reports indicate most Bitcoin was purchased with funds from constant stock issuance, not mined, with actual costs far higher than claimed. While the company's stock has crashed nearly 90% from its peak, Eric Trump's personal stake remains valuable. The recurring pattern involves aggressive public defense, legal maneuvering to bury records, making minimal changes to satisfy regulators, and eventually repackaging the venture to regain trust, often successfully.

marsbit20 min fa

In the Name of Charity, For the Benefit of the Family: How the Trump Family Turns Philanthropy into Profit?

marsbit20 min fa

Bernstein Report: Agentic AI Will Transform CPU from Supporting Role to Leading Role, Bullish on Hygon Information

Bernstein research report: Agentic AI will turn CPUs from supporting players to leading roles, bullish on Hygon Information. Analysts led by David Dai argue that AI is transitioning from the chatbot era to the agentic AI era. Unlike simple query-response models, agentic AI involves complex workflows including retrieval, planning, tool calling, and multi-step reasoning. This shift dramatically increases the demand for CPU compute to orchestrate these tasks, manage memory, and prevent expensive GPU idling. The report forecasts that the GPU-to-CPU ratio in inference clusters will reverse from 8:1 in 2025 to 1:1 by 2029. In agentic AI workloads, CPUs could account for 50% of the compute, on par with GPUs. Consequently, the server CPU Total Addressable Market (TAM) is projected to surge from $37 billion in 2025 to $223 billion by 2030, representing a 6x expansion. Arm is identified as a key beneficiary due to its superior performance-per-watt and a strategic shift from IP licensing to designing its own chips, targeting $15 billion in chip revenue by 2030. Bernstein raises Arm's price target to $500. For x86 vendors, the report is Overweight on AMD (target $600) and Hygon Information (target CNY 450), citing leadership and strong growth in the Chinese market respectively. Intel's target is raised to $100, reflecting upgraded earnings assumptions. The analysis acknowledges significant supply-side risks, questioning whether foundry and memory capacity can support such rapid CPU growth. The optimistic demand forecast also heavily relies on Nvidia's guidance for over $1 trillion in annual AI infrastructure spend by 2027.

marsbit28 min fa

Bernstein Report: Agentic AI Will Transform CPU from Supporting Role to Leading Role, Bullish on Hygon Information

marsbit28 min fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片