Credix DeFi Protocol Hit by $4.5M Hack via Admin Breach

TheCryptoTimesPublicado em 2025-08-03Última atualização em 2025-08-04

A major exploit has hit decentralized lending protocol Credix, with an attacker siphoning off around $4.5 million after quietly gaining admin-level access nearly a week before the actual strike.

The incident came to light after security firm SlowMist flagged unusual activity involving the Credix multisig wallet. On-chain records show that six days prior to the exploit, an attacker was added as both a multisig admin and bridge controller through the protocol’s ACLManager. These elevated roles gave them direct access to mint collateral tokens via the bridge and use them to borrow assets from the lending pool.

Once the fake collateral was in place, the attacker drained the pool by borrowing against it on-chain. Security analysts at Cyvers also picked up the breach, noting that the attacker’s wallet was initially funded via Tornado Cash, a privacy mixer often used in exploits to hide money trails. 

After draining Credix’s funds, the attacker moved a bulk of the assets to Ethereum, making tracking even harder. In response, Credix took its website offline to block any new deposits while it investigates the breach. There’s been no official statement yet about user fund recovery or whether deposits were affected.

Credix had made headlines last year after securing a $60 million credit facility to expand its lending platform. But this exploit is likely to dent user trust and raise tough questions about the protocol’s internal security practices, especially its access control structure.

The Credix exploit again exposes how damaging weak admin controls and bridge access can be in DeFi.

Until Credix provides a detailed update, users should revoke any approvals, avoid new interactions, and stay alert for further developments.

Also Read: Hackers Steal $448K in Crypto From Cyprus Investor’s Wallet



Leituras Relacionadas

BIS Report Compliance Observations: The True Risks of Stablecoins Go Beyond 'De-pegging'

The BIS report, "Anchoring trust in money: innovation beyond stablecoins," highlights that the primary risks of stablecoins extend beyond potential de-pegging. It argues that the core challenge is whether stablecoins can be integrated into a financial system that is identifiable, monitorable, accountable, and regulatable. While acknowledging efficiency gains like faster payments and programmability, BIS emphasizes that money requires an institutional framework—including legal certainty, liquidity support, and financial integrity controls—which many stablecoins currently lack. The report details compliance risks, noting that while blockchain transactions are transparent, address visibility does not equate to identity or purpose clarity. This creates a systemic risk as pseudonymity, non-custodial wallets, and cross-chain bridges can undermine AML/CFT controls. Furthermore, these risks can spill over into the traditional financial system through on- and off-ramps. The future direction, per BIS, is not to prohibit innovation but to embed regulatory rules—such as identity verification and transaction screening—directly into the technological infrastructure of tokenized finance. The key takeaway for compliance is that any new financial instrument must clearly address questions of customer identification, transaction monitoring, accountability, and cross-border rule consistency to be viable as a mainstream payment tool.

marsbitHá 1h

BIS Report Compliance Observations: The True Risks of Stablecoins Go Beyond 'De-pegging'

marsbitHá 1h

When US Giants Collectively "Defect" to Chinese AI Models

When Silicon Valley Giants Turn to Chinese AI Models to Cut Costs A surprising trend is emerging: major U.S. tech companies are significantly reducing AI costs by switching to Chinese models. Coinbase, the largest U.S. cryptocurrency exchange, reportedly halved its AI spending after migrating to China's GLM-5.2 and Kimi 2.7 models, despite increasing usage. They achieved this through a sophisticated three-part strategy: implementing an automatic routing system to select the most cost-effective model per task, boosting cache hit rates from 5% to 60% to reuse computations, and employing "context engineering" to provide AI with more precise, less cluttered information. They are not alone. AI startup Lindy switched from Claude to DeepSeek, saving millions, while Snowflake's tests found GLM-5.2 solved 66% of coding tasks compared to Claude Opus's 67%—but at a fraction of the cost (output pricing is 5-7 times lower). While the top Western models may offer slightly better stability, the massive price differential is leading many businesses to reconsider their value proposition. This shift signals a deeper change in the AI industry, moving beyond pure performance benchmarks to a fierce cost competition. As pressure mounts, even OpenAI and Anthropic have begun slashing prices. For users, this means more choices, lower costs, and a crucial lesson: using multiple models based on task complexity, optimizing with caching, and keeping contexts lean are now key to leveraging AI efficiently and affordably.

marsbitHá 1h

When US Giants Collectively "Defect" to Chinese AI Models

marsbitHá 1h

BIS Report Compliance Watch: The Real Risks of Stablecoins Are Not Just 'De-pegging'

BIS Report Compliance Observations: The real risks of stablecoins go beyond "depegging" The BIS report "Anchoring trust in money: innovation beyond stablecoins" argues that while stablecoins and tokenization offer efficiency gains, their primary risk lies in fitting into an identifiable, monitorable, accountable, and regulatable financial system. Money's trust stems not just from technology but from institutional arrangements: a common unit of account, guaranteed redemption at par, liquidity support, regulatory frameworks, and financial integrity requirements. Stablecoins, operating on permissionless blockchains with pseudo-anonymity and non-custodial wallets, create systemic compliance gaps: unclear customer identity, incomplete fund origins, unexplained transaction purposes, fragmented cross-chain paths, and ambiguous liability. On-chain transparency does not equal compliance transparency. Public addresses don't reveal identity or intent. While blockchain analytics aid law enforcement, they cannot replace routine, large-scale AML/CFT controls. Effective compliance requires a closed-loop process encompassing customer onboarding, transaction monitoring, investigation, reporting, and audit. Stablecoin risks are not confined to the blockchain; they re-enter the traditional financial system via on/off-ramps, exchanges, and payment institutions. This forces banks to monitor client accounts for activity linked to virtual assets. The future direction is not to prohibit innovation but to embed rules into the technology. Tokenized finance should integrate with the existing two-tier monetary system, embedding compliance—like customer identification, pre-transaction screening, and auditable data trails—directly into the transaction flow. For compliance professionals, the key takeaway is that any new financial instrument must answer core questions: Who identifies the customer? Who monitors transactions? Who handles exceptions? Who is liable? Compliance is not the antithesis of innovation but the essential infrastructure for its sustainable growth.

链捕手Há 1h

BIS Report Compliance Watch: The Real Risks of Stablecoins Are Not Just 'De-pegging'

链捕手Há 1h

Trading

Spot
活动图片