2026年加密市场因黑客攻击损失140亿美元,有何不同之处?

cryptonews.ru2026-08-13 tarihinde yayınlandı2026-08-13 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

加密货币市场因黑客攻击和代码漏洞,在2016年至2026年8月期间累计损失超过142.7亿美元。2026年仅前八个月就记录了164起安全事件,数量比2025年全年高出约70%,造成的损失约12亿美元。尽管损失金额尚未超过2022年的峰值(27.7亿美元),但事件频率急剧上升。分析认为这既得益于攻击追踪技术的改进,也源于人工智能发展背景下黑客活动的增加。 2026年的重大损失主要集中在4月,其中Drift和Kelp协议分别遭受约2.95亿和2.93亿美元的攻击。尤其是Kelp事件,黑客利用LayerZero跨链桥漏洞铸造虚假资产进行抵押借贷,不仅造成直接损失,更引发连锁反应,导致整个DeFi生态大量资金外流,Aave等协议存款额大幅缩水。 报告指出,市场对安全事件的恐慌性抛售往往比攻击本身造成更大财务损失。例如,BonkDAO被盜2100万美元,但其代币BONK市值却蒸发近1.4亿美元。其他案例,如Drift和Resolv的代币在遭攻击后价格暴跌80%和70%,Step Finance更是因此破产,其代币STEP价值跌幅超过99%。分析强调,这些数据可能仍被低估,未包含个人钱包被盗等损失。

《RBC-加密》不提供投资建议,本材料仅供参考。加密货币是一种波动性资产,可能导致财务损失。

根据分析平台CoinGecko的报告,在2016年至2026年期间,去中心化金融(DeFi)协议和加密货币交易所因黑客攻击和代码错误,累计损失超过142.7亿美元。而截至2026年8月的数据显示,今年已记录的事件数量超过了以往任何时期,尽管总损失金额目前仍低于2022年的峰值水平。

据CoinGecko数据显示,2026年已记录164起独立事件,比2025年全年的97起增加了约70%。对于加密行业而言,损失金额最大的一年仍然是2022年,损失达27.7亿美元,略微领先于2021年的26.6亿美元。截至2026年8月初,损失约为12亿美元。

专家们认为,这种急剧增长不仅归因于攻击追踪方法的改进,也与人工智能发展背景下恶意行为者活跃度的提升有关。

在编制报告时,CoinGecko使用了2018-2022年期间的REKT Database (DeFiWatch)数据以及2023-2026年期间的DeFiLlama黑客攻击追踪数据。分析中排除了没有自身代币的协议——特别是中心化交易所、没有原生资产的跨链桥和硬件钱包。

2026年的数据是初步的,覆盖了1月至8月初的时期。为了评估今年单个代币价格下跌造成的损失,分析师使用了黑客攻击前七天的平均市值,并将其与2026年8月初的指标进行了比较。

同时,研究报告的作者强调,实际损失可能要高得多,因为此金额未包含个人钱包被黑以及生态系统中的其他损失。

2026年的加密项目黑客攻击事件

2026年对加密行业造成最大损失的是4月份,损失接近6.45亿美元。主要事件是Drift和Kelp协议分别遭受的2.95亿美元和2.93亿美元的黑客攻击。

据分析师称,这两次攻击由不同的恶意行为者实施,推测与朝鲜黑客有关。而Kelp的攻击与其他事件的不同之处在于,它给整个DeFi领域都造成了损失。

恶意行为者利用了LayerZero跨链桥中的一个漏洞,并铸造了非足额抵押的封装版以太坊代币——rsETH。然后他们将这些代币用作Aave协议中的抵押品以获取真实资产。

这对Aave造成了灾难性后果——导致用户撤出了数十亿美元的流动性。协议中的总存款在大约两天内减少了约40亿美元,到8月初该指标降至147亿美元。

尽管到5月底,通过加密社区的努力,从Kelp盗取的用户资金已归还,所有资产也回到了受该事件影响的协议中,但整个DeFi领域仍有巨额存款未能回流。截至8月,该领域的损失超过200亿美元。

代币价格下跌比黑客攻击本身危害更大

除了黑客攻击和盗窃本身,CoinGecko的分析师还指出了另一个层面的财务损失,即受攻击协议代币持有者所承受的。他们指出,市场对事件做出的反应往往会造成更大的损害。

专家们以BonkDAO为例,市场反应造成的损失大大超过了黑客攻击本身的损失:储备金损失为2100万美元,而BONK代币的市值则缩水了近1.4亿美元。根据Coingecko的说法,“这表明市场反应可能比黑客攻击本身代价更高。”

报告中还列举了一些例子,例如,Drift协议(后更名为Velocity)的代币DRIFT自4月1日遭黑客攻击以来下跌了80%。Resolv (RESOLV) 自2026年3月以来下跌了70%。而最糟糕的例子是Step Finance,其漏洞导致协议破产,其代币STEP损失了超过99%的价值。

end-content

İlgili Sorular

Q根据CoinGecko的报告,2016年至2026年间,DeFi和加密货币交易所因黑客攻击和代码错误共损失了多少资金?

A共损失了超过142.7亿美元的资金。

Q2026年(截至8月数据)在黑客攻击事件数量上与2025年相比有何变化?

A2026年已记录了164起独立事件,这比2025年全年的97起增加了大约70%。

Q在分析的2026年黑客攻击事件中,哪个月份造成的损失最大?主要涉及哪些协议?

A2026年4月造成的损失最大,接近6.45亿美元。主要的攻击事件是Drift协议(损失2.95亿美元)和Kelp协议(损失2.93亿美元)的被黑。

Q报告指出,除了直接的资产被盗,对持币者造成更大财务损失的原因是什么?请举例说明。

A报告指出,市场对黑客事件的负面反应往往会造成更大的损失。例如,BonkDAO协议被盗2100万美元准备金,但其代币BONK的市值却缩水了近1.4亿美元,市场反应的损失远大于黑客盗窃本身。

QKelp协议被黑的特殊之处在哪里?这次事件对DeFi生态造成了怎样的连锁影响?

AKelp协议被黑的特殊之处在于,它通过LayerZero桥的漏洞铸造了无真实资产背书的rsETH代币,并将其作为抵押品在Aave协议中借出真实资产。这导致用户恐慌性撤资,Aave协议的总存款在两天内暴跌约40亿美元,整个DeFi领域的流动性也大量流失,到8月时损失超过200亿美元。

İlgili Okumalar

Jameson Lopp's BIP-110 Postmortem: Bitcoin Is Driven by Game Theory, Not Morality

Jameson Lopp's analysis concludes that BIP-110, a proposal to restrict arbitrary data (like inscriptions) on Bitcoin, failed due to economic and technical realities, not moral arguments. The proposal, championed by Luke Dashjr and others, aimed to "cleanse" the chain but never reached its 55% miner activation threshold. Upon its forced signaling deadline in August, only the OCEAN pool (with ~1% hash rate) supported it, creating a short-lived fork that quickly died as miners faced unredeemable block rewards. Lopp's earlier predictions about its economic infeasibility were proven correct. Technically, BIP-110 was flawed; workarounds to embed data compliant with its rules were demonstrated almost immediately, proving it couldn't achieve its stated goal. The debate often devolved into moralistic rhetoric, with supporters accusing opponents of supporting child exploitation material—a tactic Lopp criticizes as ineffective for building consensus. Lopp argues Bitcoin is driven by incentives and game theory, not morality. Past forks like Bitcoin Cash promised economic benefits, while BIP-110 offered only restrictions and reduced miner fees, gaining no substantial support from major economic players. He predicts the "puritans" behind the failed fork will continue complaining but their new chain will remain insignificant. The episode reaffirms that attempting to censor data on a permissionless, anti-censorship network like Bitcoin is a futile battle.

marsbit23 dk önce

Jameson Lopp's BIP-110 Postmortem: Bitcoin Is Driven by Game Theory, Not Morality

marsbit23 dk önce

Tokenization Scale Soars to $4.3 Billion, But Why Did Securitize Incur a $5.5 Million Loss?

Securitize's first quarterly report post-IPO reveals a paradox: while its tokenized assets under management hit a record $4.3 billion (up 16% YoY) and platform trading volume surged 147% to $5.3 billion, total revenue fell 5% to $14.4 million. Tokenization revenue specifically dropped ~12% to $7.8 million, leading to an adjusted EBITDA loss of $5.5 million. CFO Francisco Flores explained that most trading volume is not yet monetized, with the majority of tokenization revenue still coming from one-time projects like new protocol integrations. In contrast, asset servicing revenue, a more recurring stream, grew slightly to $6.6 million. The company has lowered its full-year revenue guidance to $70-$80 million from an initial projection of $110 million. Industry experts note this highlights a structural challenge for the tokenization sector. Scaling assets on-chain doesn't automatically scale a profitable business model. Current implementations often rely on costly, customized projects for each new asset or jurisdiction. The future, they argue, lies in building standardized infrastructure that generates recurring "infrastructure revenue" from post-issuance activities like compliance, distributions, and secondary trading—similar to enterprise software. Analysts caution against misinterpreting high trading volumes as indicative of a mature fee-based model, as Securitize's broad volume metric includes many non-monetized actions. The key test for the industry is whether adding billions in new assets can generate sustainable revenue without constant new custom projects.

marsbit25 dk önce

Tokenization Scale Soars to $4.3 Billion, But Why Did Securitize Incur a $5.5 Million Loss?

marsbit25 dk önce

The Five Paradoxes of Artificial Intelligence

**Five Paradoxes of Artificial Intelligence** Artificial intelligence (AI) is an era filled with paradoxes, which we navigate as we advance. **1. The Prediction Paradox** AI experts, from pioneers like Marvin Minsky to contemporary figures like Geoffrey Hinton and Demis Hassabis, have a history of inaccurate forecasts regarding AI's capabilities and timelines, such as achieving human-level machine intelligence or surpassing radiologists. Predictions about Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) vary wildly between optimistic entrepreneurs and skeptical academics, highlighting the inherent unpredictability of technological futures. **2. The Employment Quantification Paradox** Despite numerous studies from institutions like the OECD, IMF, and McKinsey attempting to quantify AI's impact on jobs, estimates of affected employment range from 0.4% to 67%, revealing vast inconsistencies. This paradox arises because isolating AI's effect from other economic, social, and technological factors is virtually impossible, and forecasts depend on static assumptions about a dynamically evolving technology. **3. The Productivity Paradox** While AI is a transformative General Purpose Technology, significant productivity growth has not yet materialized in major economies like the EU and has only matched historical averages in the US. This disconnect between rapid innovation and slow productivity gains, reminiscent of the "Solow Paradox" from the computer age, is often explained by time lags. History shows it takes decades for such technologies to diffuse and trigger complementary innovations that boost productivity. **4. The Data Value Paradox** Data is hailed as the "new oil" and critical for AI, yet its economic value is paradoxical. Its worth is realized only in use, not in straightforward trade. Despite policy emphasis and initiatives for data asset recognition on corporate balance sheets in China, the monetized value remains negligible—accounting for only about 0.06% of major telecom operators' total assets—highlighting the gap between perceived utility and financial valuation. **5. The Industrial Revolution Paradox** For decades, nearly every major new technology, from the internet and nanotechnology to blockchain and now AI, has been proclaimed as the driver of a "Fourth Industrial Revolution." This constant reassignment suggests prior labels were premature. True industrial revolutions are typically identified in hindsight, not in real-time. Furthermore, the coexistence of such a proclaimed transformative revolution with ongoing economic crises would be historically anomalous. Whether AI truly defines a new industrial revolution remains a narrative for the future to decide.

marsbit28 dk önce

The Five Paradoxes of Artificial Intelligence

marsbit28 dk önce

İşlemler

Spot
活动图片