DeFi protocol token NFD crashes by 99% after a flash loan attack

CointelegraphОпубліковано о 2022-09-08Востаннє оновлено о 2022-09-08

Анотація

New Free DAO, a decentralized finance (DeFi) protocol, faced a series of flash loan attacks on Sept. 8.

New Free DAO, a decentralized finance (DeFi) protocol, faced a series of flash loan attacks on Sept. 8, resulting in a reported loss of $1.25 million. The price of the native token has dropped by 99% in the wake of the attack.
Unlike normal loans, several DeFi protocols offer flash loans that allow users to borrow large amounts of assets without upfront collateral deposits. The only condition is that the loan must be returned in a single transaction within a set time period. However, this feature is often exploited by malicious adversaries to gather large amounts of assets to launch costly exploitations targeting DeFi protocols.
Blockchain security firm Certik alerted the crypto community on Thursday about the 99% price slippage of the NFD token due to a flash loan attack. The attacker reportedly deployed an unverified contract and called the function “addMember()” to add itself as a member. The attacker later executed three flash loan attacks with the assistance of the unverified contract.
New Free Dao - $NFD was exploited via flash loan attack gaining the attacker 4481 WBNB (approx. ~$1.25M) causing the token to slip in price 99%.
The attacker has connections to Neorder - $N3DR attack from 4 months ago where they took 930 BNB at the time. pic.twitter.com/5Rcht3YiIK
— CertiK Alert (@CertiKAlert) September 8, 2022
The attacker first borrowed 250 WBNB worth $69,825 via flash loan and swapped all of them for the native token NFD. The contract was then used to create multiple attack contracts to claim airdrop rewards repeatedly. The attacker then swapped all the airdrop rewards for WBNB benefiting 4481 BNB.
Out of the 4481 BNB, the attacker returned the borrowed loan (250 BNB) and swapped 2,000 BNB for 550,000 BSC-USD. Later, the attacker moved 400 BNB to the popular coin mixer service Tornado Cash.

Fund Movement From NFD Attacker Wallet to Tornado Cash Source: BSC ScanCertik also notified that the hacker behind the flash loan attack on NFD was related to those who exploited Neorder (N3DR) in May earlier this year. Later, another blockchain security firm Beosin told Cointelegraph that the attackers behind both the exploits could be the same.
Beosin also highlighted another vulnerability with the NFD protocol that could be further used for another type of flash loan attack. The security firm said that the price could be manipulated since they are calculated “using the balance of USDT in the pair, so it may lead to flash loan attack if exploited.”
3/ Although unrelated to this attack, we also find another vulnerability in the $NFD contract that may lead to price manipulation. pic.twitter.com/kKvx4hRdE4
— Beosin Alert (@BeosinAlert) September 8, 2022
Flash loan attacks have been increasingly popular among hackers due to the low risk, low cost and high reward factors. On Sept. 7, Avalanche-based lending protocol Nereus Finance became a victim of a crafty flash loan attack resulting in a loss of $371,000 in USDC. Earlier in June, Inverse Finance lost $1.2 million in another flash loan attack.

Пов'язані матеріали

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

In mid-June, three seemingly independent industry events—the compliance-driven throttling of Fable 5, the open-sourcing of GLM-5.2, and the leaked release timeline for GPT-5.6—are pushing the global AI industry toward a watershed moment. These shifts signal a fundamental restructuring of the industry's underlying logic. First, **"usability" has substantially overtaken "advanced capabilities"** as the primary weight, pushing the global large language model (LLM) supply chain into a "dual-track" phase of controlled closed-source and local open-source coexistence. Second, **the competitive moats of closed-source giants are shifting**. Their technical focus is moving from "language intelligence" toward "spatial intelligence (world models)"—a domain heavily reliant on computing power. Third, faced with常态化 transnational compliance risks, **a "model-agnostic" decoupled design has become a survival necessity for application-layer developers to maintain business continuity.** The article details how Anthropic's Fable 5, despite its advanced engineering feats, was restricted for non-U.S. citizens within 72 hours of launch, highlighting how geopolitical compliance can instantly limit even the most advanced models. In response, the open-source camp, exemplified by Zhipu AI's MIT-licensed GLM-5.2, is gaining market share by offering stable performance improvements and significant cost advantages (up to 70% savings for enterprises), while achieving full adaptation with domestic semiconductor platforms. Meanwhile, closed-source leaders like OpenAI are pivoting. The anticipated GPT-5.6 reportedly shifts focus from language to spatial intelligence and world models, aiming to rebuild a generational gap in areas like 3D understanding, simulation, and industrial design that demand immense compute. The core conclusion is that the LLM supply chain's logic has changed. Enterprises must now evaluate infrastructure based on a composite of technical performance and policy compliance. For developers, complete reliance on a single closed-source API poses unacceptable risk. Implementing a truly model-agnostic architecture—enabling swift switches to compliant, locally deployable open-source alternatives—is no longer just good practice but a fundamental baseline for business continuity.

marsbit4 хв тому

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

marsbit4 хв тому

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

The article discusses the ongoing "token subsidy war" among AI giants like OpenAI and Anthropic, questioning whether it's nearing its end. It reveals that current AI subscription prices are heavily subsidized, with some plans offering tokens at up to 70 times the actual cost to attract and retain heavy users, especially developers and enterprises. This strategy mirrors past internet-era subsidy battles, but with a key difference: AI tokens lack "lock-in" effects. Unlike ride-hailing or food delivery apps, users can easily switch between AI providers as APIs become standardized, making it difficult for companies to raise prices post-subsidy. The piece highlights a structural asymmetry in the competition. Giants like Google, with massive advertising revenue, can afford to subsidize tokens indefinitely, akin to using "tokens as a weapon." In contrast, venture-backed companies like OpenAI and Anthropic face pressure to become profitable, especially as they approach IPO. The article cites Google Ventures founder Bill Maris, who suggests Google could slash token prices by 80%, putting immense pressure on competitors. Two potential endgames are presented: the "internet service" model (subsidize, monopolize, then raise prices) and the "utility" model (tokens become a standardized, low-margin commodity like electricity). Given the low switching costs, the latter seems more likely. The competition may not have a single winner but could instead accelerate AI's evolution into a foundational, infrastructure-level technology, akin to a public utility. For now, users continue to benefit from heavily subsidized token costs.

marsbit21 хв тому

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

marsbit21 хв тому

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

"Beyond the Pitch: The Profit Game Around the World Cup" The FIFA World Cup transcends being a sporting spectacle, evolving into a massive global arena for speculation and profit-seeking. The 2026 tournament has amplified this dynamic, creating a multi-layered ecosystem of financial opportunism alongside the football. **Prediction markets** have surged into the mainstream. Platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi saw trading volumes for World Cup contracts soar, attracting new users with their financial trading model and high-profile, chain-based wealth stories that overshadow traditional sports betting in terms of growth and narrative. However, **traditional sportsbooks** remain the dominant force, leveraging established user habits, legal markets, and comprehensive product offerings to handle the vast majority of speculative wagers, with projections suggesting record-breaking betting volumes. Capital markets also react. **"Concept stocks"** in countries like South Korea and Japan experience volatile price swings based on team performance and anticipated fan spending on items like chicken, beer, and viewing parties, effectively becoming a stock market reflecting fan sentiment. The **ticket resale market** has become a sophisticated arena for arbitrage. Prices fluctuate wildly based on team draws and star power, with sellers sometimes listing tickets they don't yet own in a practice akin to short-selling, while FIFA's own "Right to Buy" tokens add another layer of speculative trading. **Collectibles and merchandise** offer another avenue. Panini sticker albums, with their inherent scarcity and nostalgic value, can become high-value collectibles. Limited-edition or locally themed jerseys command significant premiums on secondary markets, and even counterfeit vendors profit from fans' desire for affordable match-day identity. The **cryptocurrency** space has seen a frenzy of speculative, unauthorized World Cup-themed meme coins on chains like Solana. These tokens, often exploiting team names and player imagery, experience extreme pump-and-dump cycles, creating stories of massive gains for a few early entrants and steep losses for many others. Finally, an entire industry thrives on **providing information and tools** to other speculators. Developers create platforms like SeatSidekick to track ticket inventory and prices, while paid Telegram groups and subscriptions sell betting tips and predictions, monetizing the widespread desire for an informational edge. In essence, the World Cup has become a compressed, global laboratory for speculation. While the games determine champions on the field, a parallel, complex network of financial transactions—spanning prediction contracts, bets, stocks, tickets, collectibles, crypto, and information services—settles its own scores in the global market.

marsbit1 год тому

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

marsbit1 год тому

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

This article explains the three primary methods for Codex to interact with a computer, each with distinct use cases, permission boundaries, and trust levels. **1. Computer Use:** This offers the broadest access, allowing Codex to visually control and interact with the graphical user interface of authorized macOS/Windows apps, system settings, and even iOS simulators. It's ideal for tasks lacking APIs or structured tools, such as operating legacy software or multi-app workflows. However, it's the slowest method and has the widest permission scope, requiring careful supervision for sensitive actions. **2. Chrome Extension:** This grants Codex access to the user's logged-in Chrome browser state, including cookies, profiles, and open tabs. It's best for tasks requiring user identity across websites like Gmail, LinkedIn, Salesforce, or internal dashboards. Its key advantage is multi-tab control for complex workflows. While more powerful for browser-based tasks than Computer Use, it carries higher sensitivity as actions are performed under the user's identity. **3. In-App Browser:** This is a browser isolated within the Codex thread, separate from the user's personal browsing data. It excels in web development and debugging scenarios—previewing local servers, testing responsive layouts, or annotating designs directly on the page. Its isolation is a strength for development but a limitation for tasks requiring login sessions. The core principle is to choose the narrowest, safest, and most structured interface for the task. Use plugins or MCPs first, resort to visual control (Computer Use) only for GUI-dependent tasks, employ the Chrome extension for identity-reliant browser work, and prefer the In-App Browser for isolated development. **Appshots** are clarified as a fourth, complementary tool for *inputting* context—capturing a screenshot of a window to point Codex to something—rather than a method for Codex to *act*. Together, this layered approach highlights a key to AI agent productization: not granting unlimited permissions, but constraining them within clear boundaries for specific tasks while preserving user oversight.

marsbit2 год тому

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

marsbit2 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片