Original author: 0xYE.lens
Image source: Generated by Unbounded Layout AI tool
"Analysis of Blur Bid (Bid) Logic" ——Personal discovery is only for reference and discussion In the past few days, the second stage of Blur AirDrop has started to be claimed. I believe everyone has noticed one of the thresholds—users must perform a bid behavior to be able to receive. Many people are a bit confused by this bid, and so am I. Today, I took a closer look at Blur's bid logic and shared it with you.
Let me talk about the conclusion first: Blur has not carried out real innovation, it just replaced the intermediary of WETH with a new intermediary made by its own platform. And the deposit fund pool contract has not been audited (or has been audited but has not disclosed the audit report )
On the surface, it seems that Blur has innovated. Instead of using WETH to bid, it has created a Blur Pool. Users must deposit ETH into the pool before bidding, and the user's funds in the pool can be deposited at any time Withdrawal at any time, no amount and time limit. But is this true, does Blur really help to bypass WETH and bid directly with ETH ?
When I checked the transfer records of my wallet through ScopeProtocol, I found some abnormalities. In the picture below, in the tx at 3:20:59, I deposited 0.01 ETH into the Blur Pool at that time. It stands to reason that my wallet transferred out ETH, and the label should be [Send], and scope shows the [Receive] label.
The same observation 3:31:32 for this tx, I retrieved the 0.01 ETH just deposited from the pool at that time, it should be the wallet [Receive] 0.01E, but here it is marked with the [Send] label, and two The interaction objects of tx are all [Null Address:000...000], which is a bit strange. I am obviously depositing and withdrawing in the Pool, so why is it related to the black hole.
Check the tx details on etherscan, and found that when the first tx was deposited, 0.01 ETH was transferred to this address 0x0000000000a39bb272e79075ade125fd351887ac After other multiple tx transactions, it can be confirmed that this address is the contract address of Blur Pool. Then the key came, a new ERC-20 token was transferred from [Null Address:000...000] into my wallet.
Then look at the tx that was withdrawn. It can be seen that in this tx, my wallet interacted with Pool’s contract, and Pool transferred 0.01 ETH to my wallet. It should have ended here. But my wallet is incredible I transferred 0.01 new ERC-20 tokens to 【Null Address:000...000】. At this point, I suddenly realized why the two tx 【Send】 and 【Receive】labels "get opposite".
This is not a fault of scope. Observe carefully, is the new token transferred from [Null Address:000...000] into my wallet when I deposit is "ETH"? When I withdraw money, the new token transferred out of my wallet is "ETH" "? The answer is no, it is not the real ETH, but a token with the same vector diagram as the real ETH , and its name is "()".
接着往下扒, 这个「()」的合约为0x0000000000A39bb272e79075ade125fd351887Ac, 是不是很眼熟, 跟Pool 的合约是不是一模一样? 真的「一模一样」吗? 0x0000000000A39bb272e79075ade125fd351887Ac 0x0000000000a39bb272e79075ade125fd351887ac 不一样, 而且看起来像是「父子关系」。
Let’s take a look at Pool’s contract (capital A) 0x0000000000A39bb272e79075ade125fd351887Ac. You can see that when the user’s wallet calls this contract to deposit and withdraw, the real money ETH is deposited into the Blur pool, and the value is displayed as [ether].
Look at the contract of token "()" (lowercase a) 0x0000000000a39bb272e79075ade125fd351887ac, when the user deposits or withdraws real ETH , [Null Address: 000...000] will always send/transfer the same amount of " ()", pay attention, here does not display the value, but displays the quantity, and there is no unit [ether] behind the number!
Seeing here is basically clear: the user deposits into the bid fund pool, in fact, locks ETH in the fund pool, and then the Pool will send you a new token through the null address, that is, give you some 1:1 The happy bean anchored to ETH allows you to bid on the Blur platform. Of course, this happy bean can only be circulated within Blur.
When the same user withdraws money, Pool will first unlock the deposited ETH and return the ETH to your wallet, but at the same time, you must destroy the 1:1 equivalent amount of Happy Beans in your wallet.
Therefore, Blur did not carry out real innovation, but just replaced the intermediary of WETH with a new intermediary made by its own platform.
In fact, I am a little disappointed. After all, Blur's token "()" is not as authoritative as WETH, and it can only be regarded as a happy bean for closed doors. And why is the contract of the fund pool not audited? If audited, why not disclose the report? You can't say you forgot something so important as Blur, can you?
Thanks to ScopeProtocol Etherscan data service.
In the latest update, the name of token "()" on etherscan has been updated to "Blur Pool()", and it is displayed as NFT....
Of course, my analysis is missing a part, that is: when the user accepts bids from others, will this part of the funds automatically enter the fund pool with the token "Blur Pool()" and then be withdrawn, or will they directly enter the wallet in the form of ETH ? In addition, I tried Understand from the code level, but the code level is really limited. I hope that some big guys can analyze it from the level of code implementation, it must be more convincing than me! expect! !
With a little private stuff, I recommend the tool ScopeProtocol. The new Token mentioned above is not real ETH. It was discovered from here. The scope shows this token as unknown, that is, an unknown Token, so it caught my attention.
