Hacker Attack Halves Flow, Rollback Plan Sparks Civil War in Ecosystem

marsbit发布于2025-12-29更新于2025-12-29

文章摘要

Flow, a Layer 1 blockchain built by Dapper Labs, suffered a major security breach last Saturday when a hacker exploited an execution layer vulnerability, transferring approximately $3.9 million in assets off-chain. The attack caused the price of FLOW to plummet by over 50%, dropping from $0.173 to $0.079, though it later partially recovered to around $0.107. Initially, the Flow Foundation proposed rolling back the network to a checkpoint before the attack occurred, which would have erased all transactions within a six-hour window. This decision was met with strong opposition from ecosystem partners, especially cross-chain bridges like deBridge and LayerZero, who warned that a rollback could cause asset duplication, inconsistencies, and significant losses for legitimate users. Facing community backlash and partner concerns, the foundation abandoned the rollback plan. Instead, it adopted an "Isolation Recovery Plan" developed in coordination with key partners. The new strategy involves no chain reorganization, preserves all legitimate user transactions, and temporarily restricts accounts that received illicitly minted tokens. The network will be restored in multiple stages, with full functionality expected within 24 to 48 hours. The incident has raised questions about network reliability and governance, shifting the crisis from a technical issue to a broader challenge of trust in Flow's decentralized integrity.

Author | Asher(@Asher_ 0210)

Last Saturday afternoon, a sudden hacker attack threw the Flow network into chaos. This Layer 1 network, built by the Dapper Labs team and tailored for the next generation of applications, games, and digital assets, watched helplessly as assets worth $3.9 million were transferred off-chain by exploiting an execution layer vulnerability. Following the attack, its token FLOW was halved in a short time, plummeting from $0.173 to $0.079, and has since rebounded slightly to around $0.107.

FLOW K-Line Chart

Below, Odaily Planet Daily breaks down this Flow theft incident, the official response, and why it has drawn strong skepticism from Flow's partners and community.

Flow Official Emergency Response: Isolate Network and Announce Rollback Plan

After the attack, the Flow Foundation quickly responded and confirmed the details of the incident. The attacker exploited an execution layer vulnerability to transfer approximately $3.9 million in assets; the incident did not affect users' existing balances, and user deposits remain safe. The relevant attack addresses have been marked, and money laundering paths are being continuously tracked. The Foundation has submitted asset freeze requests to Circle, Tether, and several major exchanges.

To clean up illegal on-chain transactions and fix the vulnerability, the Flow Foundation isolated the network and released a patched version of the mainnet, Mainnet 28. The Foundation's initial proposed solution was to roll back the network state to a checkpoint before the attack, specifically to Cadence block height 137363395, thereby deleting all transaction records generated within approximately 6 hours. All transactions, whether legitimate or not, would be erased together, and users would need to resubmit transactions after node restarts. The Foundation believed this plan was the safest path to restore network integrity, repeatedly emphasized that user funds would not be affected throughout the process, and promised to provide external updates on the incident's progress every two hours.

This rollback decision, seemingly decisive, quickly ignited an ecological firestorm—because the hacker's funds had already been bridged off-chain, the rollback would not affect the attacker but would only impact honest users and partners.

Cross-Chain Bridge Partners, Community Users Strongly Oppose, Rollback Plan Heavily Criticized

After the rollback plan was announced, cross-chain bridge partners within the Flow ecosystem and community users quickly faced collective skepticism. Alex Smirnov, co-founder of deBridge, a major cross-chain bridge partner of Flow, publicly criticized the decision on platform X as too hasty and made without any communication with key bridge partners beforehand. As a crucial asset channel for the Flow ecosystem, deBridge did not receive any advance notice regarding the rollback.

Smirnov pointed out that the potential damage from a rollback could far exceed that of the initial hacker attack itself. Since cross-chain assets are already circulated across multiple systems, a forced rollback would cause serious issues such as asset duplication and inconsistent custody states, ultimately harming the bridges, users, and counterparties who operated normally during the window. He disclosed that approximately $200,000 and $50,000 in deposits on deBridge fell within the rollback time window; once the rollback is executed, it could lead to funds disappearing on one side or the extreme scenario of assets being minted repeatedly.

Based on these risks, Smirnov called on Flow validators to suspend block production and validation until compensation plans, partner coordination mechanisms, and independent security team intervention plans are all clarified. Similar issues are not isolated cases. As the main cross-chain custodian for USDC on the Flow network, LayerZero also faces risks with approximately $220,000 and $180,000 in cross-chain transactions falling within the rollback window.

Beyond cross-chain bridge partners within the Flow ecosystem, users on platform X began to集中 express concerns about fund safety, developers questioned the network's reliability and governance mechanisms in extreme situations, investor sentiment turned cautious, and selling pressure intensified accordingly. Many voices pointed out that the rollback itself exposed the reality of centralized control on the chain, rapidly turning a technical accident into a crisis of trust.

Some community views further targeted the core principles of blockchain. Some argued that the rollback directly shook transaction finality and immutability, making Flow resemble an alliance chain subject to administrative intervention at critical moments. Others compared it to historical security incidents on other public chains, noting that similar situations are usually handled by isolating attacker addresses and freezing fund flows, rather than performing a global rollback of the entire network state.

Crypto KOL Wazz(@WazzCrypto) stated bluntly on platform X that Flow's rollback decision was one of the worst handling methods he had ever seen. In his view, the attacker had already transferred nearly $4 million in assets off-chain and would hardly be substantively affected by the rollback; the real cost would be borne by innocent users who used the network normally via cross-chain bridges.

Flow Official Changes Stance: Abandons Rollback, Adopts Isolated Recovery New Plan

Facing strong opposition from partners and the community, the Flow official ultimately decided to abandon the network rollback and shift to an "Isolated Recovery Plan." This plan was developed through direct consultation with cross-chain bridges, exchanges, and infrastructure partners. Key points include:

  • No rollback/reorganization, preserving all legitimate user activity;
  • No need for partners to replay transactions;
  • Over 99.9% of accounts unaffected, normal operation upon restart;
  • Temporary restriction of accounts receiving illegally minted tokens upon restart;

Additionally, the network will be restored in phases:

  • Phase 1: Cadence environment goes online, EVM temporarily restricted;
  • Phase 2: Cadence repair (approximately 24 to 48 hours);
  • Phase 3: EVM repair and restart;
  • Phase 4: Cross-chain bridges/exchanges resume operation, specific recovery time determined by operators based on actual conditions after confirming stability.

Furthermore, Dapper Labs, the team behind Flow, expressed support for this plan on platform X, stating it "preserves legitimate activity and provides a clear path to recovery."

This "abandon rollback" stance alleviated ecological tensions in the short term and avoided the systemic risk扩散 that a rollback might have triggered. As of now, the network is still in the phased coordination and recovery process, and officials state that user funds remain safe.

In the highly uncertain environment of the crypto market, this crisis may become a significant watershed in Flow's development path. Its long-term impact remains to be tested by time.

相关问答

QWhat was the initial response from the Flow Foundation to the hack, and what plan did they propose?

AThe Flow Foundation quickly responded by isolating the network and proposing to roll back the network state to the checkpoint before the attack (Cadence block height 137363395), which would erase all transactions from the approximately 6-hour window.

QWhy did the cross-chain bridge partners and community strongly oppose the rollback plan?

AThey opposed it because the rollback would not affect the hacker, who had already bridged the funds off-chain, but would instead harm honest users and partners by causing issues like double-spending, asset duplication, and inconsistencies in cross-chain asset custody.

QWhat was the alternative solution Flow adopted after abandoning the rollback plan?

AFlow adopted an 'Isolation Recovery Plan' that involved no rollback, preserving all legitimate user activity, temporarily restricting accounts that received illegally minted tokens, and restarting the network in phases with coordination from bridges and exchanges.

QHow did the hack impact the price of the FLOW token?

AThe FLOW token price was halved, dropping from $0.173 to $0.079 shortly after the hack, though it later saw a small rebound to around $0.107.

QWhat major risk did deBridge highlight regarding the rollback window?

AdeBridge highlighted that about $200,000 in ETH and $50,000 in USDC on their bridge fell within the rollback window, and executing the rollback could cause those funds to vanish or be duplicated, leading to severe inconsistencies.

你可能也喜欢

「老登股」变「新贵」:从戴尔到诺基亚,AI 如何重估旧基础设施?

过去被视为增长慢、故事旧的戴尔、诺基亚、思科等老牌科技股,近期因AI成为市场热点。这并非简单的炒作,而是AI发展进入新阶段的必然结果。 早期AI行情聚焦于模型和GPU算力。但随着AI从研发走向大规模应用,真正的挑战在于基础设施建设:需要服务器、网络、存储、电力等一整套复杂系统的交付与整合。这正是老牌科技公司的优势所在,它们几十年积累的客户、供应链和系统集成能力,在AI基建阶段变得至关重要。 市场重估主要围绕三条主线: 1. **服务器与系统集成**:如戴尔、HPE。它们扮演“AI工厂施工队”的角色,优势在于将GPU等核心部件整合成可交付的完整服务器系统,并拥有强大的企业客户渠道。 2. **网络与连接**:如康宁、诺基亚、思科。AI算力集群规模越大,内部互联和数据传输越关键,驱动了对光纤、高速网络设备的强劲需求。 3. **存储与数据管理**:如西部数据、希捷。AI催生了海量训练数据、日志和冷数据存储需求,使得高容量硬盘(HDD)重新成为刚需。 真正的重估需满足三个标准:有真实的AI相关订单和收入;公司因此上调业绩指引;利润质量能同步改善。AI不会让所有传统公司变身成长股,只会筛选出那些能抓住新需求、并将其转化为可持续利润的企业。 总之,这轮行情标志着AI进入真实建设期,市场开始为“谁能把AI基建建起来”的能力定价。老牌科技股并非焕发青春,而是它们手握的基础设施能力,在AI时代被重新需要。

marsbit1小时前

「老登股」变「新贵」:从戴尔到诺基亚,AI 如何重估旧基础设施?

marsbit1小时前

解读大航海时代投资机遇,景顺长城基金发布《2026年中国企业出海报告》

景顺长城基金发布《2026年中国企业出海报告》,指出在当前全球产业链重构背景下,“出海”已成为中国企业的“必选项”和新增长引擎。报告认为,出海行情并非昙花一现,而是可能持续影响A股投资的长期趋势。 报告分析了中国企业出海的版本迭代:从早期赚取加工费的“产品出口”(出海1.0),演进至当前包含产能、经营能力及服务输出的“出海2.0”。后者具体体现在资本品投资高增长、消费品品牌拓展、服务业(如创新药BD、大模型Token)加速出海以及供应链深度嵌入全球AI产业链。 中国企业出海的底气源于多重系统性优势:庞大的工程师红利、完善且低成本的基础设施以及完整的产业链集群效应。这些优势在光模块、创新药等行业已转化为全球竞争力。 针对具体投资机遇,报告重点提及: 1. **资本品**:如工程机械、电力设备(变压器、电网配电设备等),凭借成本与服务优势,正快速进入“一带一路”及全球市场。 2. **科技与高端制造**:新能源车需注重海外本地化;AI应用(大模型、云服务等)及光模块企业展现出非线性增长潜力。 3. **消费与医药**:消费品牌正从“链价比”优势转向品牌溢价;创新药在肿瘤、减重等大适应症领域孕育着巨大的市场机会。 报告也指出,出海之路面临地缘政治、合规、文化等多重挑战,成功的企业需具备前置合规、本地化运营及构建海外核心能力等关键素质。

marsbit2小时前

解读大航海时代投资机遇,景顺长城基金发布《2026年中国企业出海报告》

marsbit2小时前

交易

现货
合约

热门文章

如何购买FLOW

欢迎来到HTX.com!我们已经让购买Flow(FLOW)变得简单而便捷。跟随我们的逐步指南,放心开始您的加密货币之旅。第一步:创建您的HTX账户使用您的电子邮件、手机号码注册一个免费账户在HTX上。体验无忧的注册过程并解锁所有平台功能。立即注册第二步:前往买币页面,选择您的支付方式信用卡/借记卡购买:使用您的Visa或Mastercard即时购买Flow(FLOW)。余额购买:使用您HTX账户余额中的资金进行无缝交易。第三方购买:探索诸如Google Pay或Apple Pay等流行支付方法以增加便利性。C2C购买:在HTX平台上直接与其他用户交易。HTX场外交易台(OTC)购买:为大量交易者提供个性化服务和竞争性汇率。第三步:存储您的Flow(FLOW)购买完您的Flow(FLOW)后,将其存储在您的HTX账户钱包中。您也可以通过区块链转账将其发送到其他地方或者用于交易其他加密货币。第四步:交易Flow(FLOW)在HTX的现货市场轻松交易Flow(FLOW)。访问您的账户,选择您的交易对,执行您的交易,并实时监控。HTX为初学者和经验丰富的交易者提供了友好的用户体验。

780人学过发布于 2024.03.29更新于 2026.06.02

如何购买FLOW

相关讨论

欢迎来到HTX社区。在这里,您可以了解最新的平台发展动态并获得专业的市场意见。以下是用户对FLOW(FLOW)币价的意见。

活动图片