Losses from Hacks of Crypto Projects Exceed $1.3 Billion

cryptonews.ruPublicado em 2026-07-27Última atualização em 2026-07-27

Resumo

According to a report by Onchain Lens, crypto project losses from hacks have exceeded $1.3 billion this year. The primary cause of damage was the compromise of access control mechanisms, where attackers obtained privileged rights or critical credentials. The biggest losers were Kelp DAO ($292M), Drift Protocol ($280M), Humanity Protocol ($31M), Step Finance ($30M), and Truebit ($26.5M). The second largest cause of loss was phishing and social engineering attacks, accounting for approximately $282 million. Attacks on oracles—services that feed external data into blockchains—also caused significant damage, with Ostium losing $24M, Blend Protocol $10.86M, and Bonzo $9M. The data indicates that the total damage stems from a limited number of highly effective attacks, rather than hundreds of small incidents. A shift in threat patterns is noted, with multi-million dollar losses increasingly resulting from compromised keys and access permissions rather than smart contract bugs. Security experts emphasize that the human factor remains a major industry risk, as phishing and social engineering remain as profitable as technical attacks. In a related incident, Blockaid reported a $24.15 million hack of the AFX Trade decentralized exchange's cross-chain bridge.

According to a report by Onchain Lens, the largest losses for crypto projects are related to the compromise of access control mechanisms. By obtaining privileged rights or access to critical credentials, attackers were able to carry out the most profitable attacks of the half-year. The greatest losses were incurred by:

  • Kelp DAO — $292 million;

  • Drift Protocol — $280 million;

  • Humanity Protocol — $31 million;

  • Step Finance — $30 million;

  • Truebit — $26.5 million.

The second largest cause of losses was phishing attacks and the use of social engineering methods. Approximately $282 million was stolen using this method. Another vulnerability turned out to be oracles—services that transmit external data to the blockchain. Due to attacks related to this infrastructure, the Ostium project lost $24 million, Blend Protocol — $10.86 million, and Bonzo — $9 million.

Onchain Lens statistics show: the total volume of damage was formed not by hundreds of separate incidents, but by a limited number of the most effective attacks. Simultaneously, the nature of threats is changing: increasingly, the cause of multi-million dollar losses is not errors in smart contracts, but the compromise of keys, permissions, and other access control mechanisms.

Security specialists stated that the human factor remains one of the main risks for the industry. Despite the development of protective measures, phishing and social engineering continue to bring attackers hundreds of millions of dollars, maintaining effectiveness on par with technical attacks.

Earlier, analysts from the company Blockaid reported a hack of the cross-chain bridge of the decentralized exchange AFX Trade. As a result of the attack, the attackers stole USDC stablecoins amounting to $24.15 million.

end-content

Perguntas relacionadas

QWhat was the total reported damage from hacks to crypto projects in the first half of the year, according to Onchain Lens?

AThe total reported damage exceeded $1.3 billion.

QWhat was identified as the primary cause of the largest losses for crypto projects in the Onchain Lens report?

AThe primary cause was the compromise of access control mechanisms, where attackers gained privileged rights or access to critical credentials.

QWhich crypto project suffered the single largest loss mentioned in the article, and what was the amount?

AKelp DAO suffered the single largest loss mentioned, amounting to $292 million.

QBesides compromised access controls, what were the other two major categories of attacks leading to significant losses?

AThe other two major categories were phishing/social engineering attacks (resulting in about $282 million in losses) and attacks targeting oracle infrastructure.

QWhat trend in the nature of security threats does the Onchain Lens report highlight?

AThe report highlights a shift where multi-million dollar losses are increasingly caused not by smart contract bugs, but by the compromise of keys, permissions, and other access management mechanisms, alongside the persistent risk of human factors like phishing.

Leituras Relacionadas

Has the Crypto Utopia Collapsed? The Industry Reaches an Inflection Point After the Frenzy Subsides

Has the crypto utopia collapsed? The industry is at an inflection point as the hype fades. The prevailing view is that crypto has become an outlet for excess liquidity, with many participants leaving as financial returns have fallen short of past-decade expectations. The 2021 boom has been revealed as an illusion, placing the industry in the "trough of disillusionment" on Gartner's Hype Cycle. This forces a return to first principles: re-evaluating token value, securing DeFi protocols, and finding real-world applications. The core failure is a repetitive cycle of reflexive speculation, driven by the premature liquidity of tokens. The industry's incentives prioritized short-term gains over genuine innovation. While curiosity drives invention, recent DeFi hacks signal a need for engineering and iteration, including token models. The culture is shifting; the industry is no longer in its early stages. Positioned at a turning point on the technology adoption curve, crypto faces the immense challenge of rebuilding finance from scratch, a process of inevitable iteration and failure. Regarding crypto VC, claims of its death are overstated. The exceptional returns of 2016-2021 were an anomaly. The initial crypto-anarchist ethos has largely been co-opted by Wall Street and regulators. The utopian vision is over; the industry is being assimilated into the existing system, becoming a business. Current viable project categories include stablecoins, prediction markets, tokenized assets/RWA, perpetual contracts, and AI/agent integration. Crypto is converging with fintech, far from the envisioned DeFi revolution, and must find killer apps within regulatory boundaries. A reconciliation is possible: cryptocurrency may change value storage and transfer in subtle, imperceptible ways that integrate into existing systems, rather than through revolutionary fanfare. True creativity often emerges from adversity. There remains much to build for those driven by genuine curiosity.

marsbitHá 13m

Has the Crypto Utopia Collapsed? The Industry Reaches an Inflection Point After the Frenzy Subsides

marsbitHá 13m

Lei Jun Earns 7 Billion in One Day from CXMT's IPO? Xiaomi Executive Responds

On July 28th, Changxin Technology's stock price on the Sci-Tech Innovation Board experienced minor fluctuations. The company had made a historic market debut the previous day, becoming the first A-share stock to record a single-day trading volume exceeding 1 trillion yuan. This led to significant paper gains for its strategic investors. Among them, Xiaomi's wholly-owned subsidiary was allocated 18.24 million shares with an initial investment of approximately 158 million yuan. Reports estimated a paper profit of 717 million yuan for Xiaomi founder Lei Jun based on his shareholding structure. However, a Xiaomi executive clarified that this was a corporate investment and should not be conflated with personal wealth. Other major beneficiaries included Alibaba and Nio. Alibaba, an early investor, held nearly a 5% stake through two entities, with an estimated paper gain exceeding 160 billion yuan. Nio, participating in the strategic placement, also saw substantial paper returns. Additionally, state-owned banks and insurance institutions that invested in Changxin recorded potential gains in the hundreds of billions. Conversely, companies like Country Garden reportedly missed out on nearly 50 billion yuan in potential gains after divesting their stakes before the IPO due to liquidity pressures. The article notes that these are paper profits based on the listing price, as the allocated shares are subject to lock-up periods, and final realized gains will depend on future stock performance. An employee from Changxin Technology commented that ordinary staff remain focused on their salaries and benefits rather than the market hype.

marsbitHá 22m

Lei Jun Earns 7 Billion in One Day from CXMT's IPO? Xiaomi Executive Responds

marsbitHá 22m

Selling Tokens or Selling Outcomes: Several Paradoxes of the AI Business Model

"The Token vs. Outcome Sale: Key Paradoxes in the AI Business Model By mid-2026, the AI industry shows rapid growth in revenue and token usage, yet the underlying business models differ significantly. This article analyzes four structural paradoxes defining the current landscape, all pointing to the commoditization of intelligence and the concentration of profits in few segments. **The Cost Paradox: Cheaper Tokens, Heavier Bills** Despite a >95% price drop for equivalent AI capability since 2023, total spending has skyrocketed due to the Jevons Paradox: lower prices expand usage into previously uneconomical tasks. Furthermore, the shift to autonomous agents operating 24/7 multiplies consumption. However, efficiency gains often remain unrealized due to unchanged organizational workflows (the Solow Paradox). The focus is shifting from optimizing token price to optimizing the task itself. **The Hierarchy Paradox: The App is King vs. The App is Dead** While conventional wisdom holds that value accrues at the application layer, the AI stack is inverted. Infrastructure (chips) captures ~70% of industry revenue and ~80% of gross profit, while application-layer margins are thin (0-30%). Fast-evolving base models threaten "thin" apps. Sustainable applications are those that embed intelligence into specific contexts, possessing private data, workflows, or delivery capabilities that become more valuable as the base model improves. **The Responsibility Paradox: Profit Follows Accountability** Growth rates alone don't guarantee profit. A key differentiator is a company's willingness and ability to take responsibility for specific outcomes. Selling by the token competes for IT budgets; selling by the outcome (e.g., a resolved support ticket) taps into larger human labor budgets. Low-responsibility, high-volume tasks (e.g., generic客服) face commoditization. High-stakes, regulated domains (e.g., law, healthcare) where vendors assume heavier liability for results command higher margins, as seen with companies like Harvey in legal tech. **The Open-Source Paradox: Open Wins Traffic, Closed Wins Revenue** Open-source models dominate in usage share and developer adoption, often being 5-20x cheaper. However, closed-source models still capture the majority of enterprise spending (~89%). Enterprises pay a premium for closed-source reliability, support, compliance, and accountability. The total cost of ownership (TCO) is converging as closed-source prices fall faster than open-source builds trust, leading to hybrid deployments. Profit is migrating from the model layer itself to upstream (compute) and downstream (orchestration, data, services)."

marsbitHá 23m

Selling Tokens or Selling Outcomes: Several Paradoxes of the AI Business Model

marsbitHá 23m

Trading

Spot
活动图片