avatar
YuanMan 🧑‍💼
40,649 Twitter followers
Follow
| 🛠️Founder of @SanyuanCapital @DeJob_Official | 📩Telegram:https://t.co/sZnvz7VZdb
Posts
avatar
YuanMan 🧑‍💼
Major SEC Boost: DeFi Front-End Interface Regulatory Path Clarified! This news in the early hours of the morning is quite important. The SEC's Division of Trading and Markets recently released a Staff Statement, clearly defining the boundaries for DeFi front-ends, wallet extensions, and self-custodied interfaces—those meeting certain criteria can operate without registration as brokerage firms. I believe the core logic remains unchanged: Smart contracts are decentralized and only execute code, making regulation extremely difficult. The SEC's biggest challenge in the past has been user interfaces (webpages, apps—these can be regulated, but how to regulate them requires exploration). Deploying swap pool contracts is fine, since it's on-chain, anyone can do it. However, if the front-end interface facilitates one-click trading for the general public, it's easily considered as providing brokerage services. If DeFi trading pages are considered brokerage firms, then you'd need to register with your real name when swapping, which presents a challenge. This is especially true when it comes to tokenized stock trading. If the US stock market wants 24-hour trading in the future, market makers will be an issue, and DeFi pools can provide a buffer against price fluctuations. Overly strict regulation would stifle the industry's development. Looking at prices, for example, Uniswap hasn't been doing very well in recent years due to unclear regulatory attitudes. This time, the guidance provides clear opinions, and it's very possible that DeFi will usher in a second spring. Established brokers and market makers may participate in this field, as tokenized stocks become more common.
UNI
2.86%
avatar
YuanMan 🧑‍💼
I had a sudden inspiration to analyze the Hyperbridge attack, so I had a simple local simulation of the attack process and discovered a few issues: 1. The attack essentially involved forging cross-chain messages and getting them verified by the Gateway. Many cross-chain bridge thefts follow a similar pattern, the core issue being vulnerabilities in the verification logic (e.g., checks were bypassed or missing in a certain path). 2. The hackers minted approximately 1 billion Bridged DOT tokens but only cashed out $237,000. Besides time constraints, market liquidity was genuinely poor. During a bull market with good liquidity, the losses could easily have been tens of millions of dollars. 3. For ordinary users: Minimize holding cross-chain wrapped tokens. Each additional bridge/contract adds another layer of risk. When funds are idle, especially during a bear market, it's advisable to store them in a cold wallet, rather than putting them all into DeFi for meager returns—principal safety should always be the top priority. Finally, cross-chain bridges remain a high-risk area; native assets are the most reliable protection. The counterfeit coins minted this time are still counterfeit coins, and the project team will eventually destroy them. The genuine coins you hold on the original chain will still be fine (unless the PolkaDot original chain also has problems).
很大很大的橙子
@0xVeryBigOrange
Bet ten bucks this is the project team doing evil themselves: Polkadot bridge vulnerability exploited, 1 billion DOT minted on Ethereum network and already dumped [MMS NEWS] 2026-04-13 12:52:15
DOT
4.52%
loading indicator
Loading..