Smart Contract Attacks: The Most Memorable Blockchain Hacks of All Time

Paulina Lewandowska

30 Dec 2022
<strong><noscript><img class=

Due to their ability to automate financial procedures and transactions, smart contracts have the potential to completely change the way we conduct business. They are not impervious to security flaws, though, as is the case with other technologies. There have been a number of smart contract hacks in the past that have caused large losses and damaged the community's confidence. The most famous smart contract hacks ever will be covered in this article, along with the lessons that may be drawn from them. These incidents—from the DAO hack to the Bancor hack—have had a long-lasting effect on the blockchain sector and serve as reminders of the value of properly safeguarding smart contracts.

The DAO hack

A decentralized venture capital fund for the cryptocurrency and decentralized technology industries was one of the goals of the Decentralized Autonomous Organization, or DAO. Its decentralized architecture was designed to cut expenses while giving investors more power and access. The DAO was designed to run decentralized, relying on the collective judgment of its investors.

A flaw in the coding of The DAO, a smart contract on the Ethereum blockchain, was found by a hacker on June 17, 2016. This gave the attacker the ability to ask the contract to send money to them repeatedly, leading to the theft of 3.6 million ETH, which was then valued at about $70 million. Due to two flaws in the contract's architecture, the exploit was made possible: a mechanism that first transmitted the ETH and then modified the internal token balance was not designed to account for the possibility of repeated calls.

A flaw in the coding of The DAO, a smart contract on the Ethereum blockchain, was found by a hacker on June 17, 2016. This gave the attacker the ability to ask the contract to send money to them repeatedly, leading to the theft of 3.6 million ETH, which was then valued at about $70 million. Due to two flaws in the contract's architecture, the exploit was made possible: a mechanism that first transmitted the ETH and then modified the internal token balance was not designed to account for the possibility of repeated calls.

The Veritaseum hack

A cryptocurrency called Veritaseum was introduced in 2017. A cyberattack at Veritaseum in April 2018 cost the company the equivalent of $8.4 million in cryptocurrencies.

The Veritaseum cryptocurrency's smart contract had a flaw that allowed for the hack to take place. By using a reentrancy attack, the flaw allowed an attacker to siphon money from the Veritaseum smart contract. In a reentrancy attack, an attacker can run a smart contract's function repeatedly before the state of the contract is changed, allowing the attacker to remove money from the contract before the state is updated to reflect the withdrawal.

The Veritaseum attack served as a reminder of the value of properly protecting smart contracts as well as the possible dangers of employing them. It also emphasized the necessity of rigorous testing and auditing of smart contracts to make sure they are safe and without flaws.

The Bancor hack

On the Ethereum blockchain, the Bancor network is a decentralized exchange that enables users to purchase and sell a range of different cryptocurrencies. The Bancor network was hacked in July 2018, and as a result, about $12 million worth of cryptocurrency was lost.

The hack was conducted by taking advantage of a weakness in the smart contract that controlled the Bancor network. Due to a vulnerability, an attacker was able to take over the Bancor contract and steal money from it. In order to stop more losses, the Bancor team was able to react to the attack promptly and halt trading on the site.

The Bancor attack served as a reminder of the value of properly protecting smart contracts as well as the possible dangers of employing them. It also emphasized the necessity of rigorous testing and auditing of smart contracts to make sure they are safe and without flaws.

Hacks in DEFI

Decentralized finance (DeFi) projects benefit greatly from smart contracts since they enable automated, self-executing financial processes and transactions. They are used to speed up, confirm, and enforce contract negotiations and performance.

Because smart contracts can be used to enable a variety of financial transactions and handle large quantities of money, smart contract security is crucial in DeFi projects. If a smart contract is not adequately protected, attackers may leverage its flaws to steal money from it or engage in other forms of contract manipulation. Users of the DeFi project may suffer large losses as a result, and the initiative's credibility and dependability may be harmed.

The bZx hack

A decentralized finance (DeFi) platform called bZx enables users to utilize smart contracts to borrow and lend cryptocurrency. bZx experienced two different attacks in February 2020 that took use of holes in its smart contracts.

On February 14, 2020, a hacker used a flaw in the bZx smart contract to steal about $6 million worth of cryptocurrency. This was the first theft. On February 18, 2020, a fresh vulnerability in the bZx smart contract was used by a different hacker to steal an additional $350,000 worth of cryptocurrency.

The bZx hacks were caused by flaws in the bZx smart contracts, which let attackers take advantage of them and steal money from them. The intrusions served as a reminder of the value of properly protecting smart contracts as well as the possible dangers of employing them. To ensure the security and lack of vulnerabilities in their smart contracts, DeFi projects must thoroughly test and audit them.

The Harvest Finance hack

The Harvest Finance hack was a security issue that happened in October 2020. An attacker used a smart contract weakness to steal cryptocurrencies valued at about $24 million. A decentralized finance (DeFi) technology called Harvest Finance enables users to generate yield by supplying liquidity to various financial marketplaces.

The hack happened when a perpetrator drained funds from the Harvest Finance smart contract by taking advantage of a flaw in it. Due to a vulnerability, the attacker was able to alter the contract and withdraw money from it without setting off the security features. The Harvest Finance team was able to stop trading on the platform to stop more losses after the hack was identified many hours after it happened.

The Akropolis hack

The Akropolis decentralized finance (DeFi) platform was attacked on November 12, 2020, when a protocol flaw resulted in the loss of about 2,030,841.0177 DAI from the impacted YCurve and sUSD pools. The problem was caused by a bug in the platform's SavingsModule smart contract's handling of the deposit logic, which gave the attacker the ability to create a significant number of pool tokens without the support of valued assets. This happened because the protocol did not correctly impose reentrancy protection on the deposit logic and validate supported tokens. Users of the Akropolis platform experienced severe disruption and losses as a result of the Smart Contract Hacks.

Conclusion - Smart Contract Hacks

One cannot stress the significance of properly safeguarding smart contracts. Smart contracts are capable of handling large quantities of value and a variety of financial activities. If a smart contract is not properly secured, it may cause consumers to suffer large losses and jeopardize the project's legitimacy and dependability.

Because of this, it is crucial that smart contracts undergo extensive testing and auditing. Smart contracts can be made secure and fault-free with the aid of testing and auditing. It is an essential stage in the creation process and can aid in safeguarding the security of blockchain projects and ensuring their smooth operation.

Most viewed


Never miss a story

Stay updated about Nextrope news as it happens.

You are subscribed

Token Engineering Process

Kajetan Olas

13 Apr 2024
Token Engineering Process

Token Engineering is an emerging field that addresses the systematic design and engineering of blockchain-based tokens. It applies rigorous mathematical methods from the Complex Systems Engineering discipline to tokenomics design.

In this article, we will walk through the Token Engineering Process and break it down into three key stages. Discovery Phase, Design Phase, and Deployment Phase.

Discovery Phase of Token Engineering Process

The first stage of the token engineering process is the Discovery Phase. It focuses on constructing high-level business plans, defining objectives, and identifying problems to be solved. That phase is also the time when token engineers first define key stakeholders in the project.

Defining the Problem

This may seem counterintuitive. Why would we start with the problem when designing tokenomics? Shouldn’t we start with more down-to-earth matters like token supply? The answer is No. Tokens are a medium for creating and exchanging value within a project’s ecosystem. Since crypto projects draw their value from solving problems that can’t be solved through TradFi mechanisms, their tokenomics should reflect that. 

The industry standard, developed by McKinsey & Co. and adapted to token engineering purposes by Outlier Ventures, is structuring the problem through a logic tree, following MECE.
MECE stands for Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive. Mutually Exclusive means that problems in the tree should not overlap. Collectively Exhaustive means that the tree should cover all issues.

In practice, the “Problem” should be replaced by a whole problem statement worksheet. The same will hold for some of the boxes.
A commonly used tool for designing these kinds of diagrams is the Miro whiteboard.

Identifying Stakeholders and Value Flows in Token Engineering

This part is about identifying all relevant actors in the ecosystem and how value flows between them. To illustrate what we mean let’s consider an example of NFT marketplace. In its case, relevant actors might be sellers, buyers, NFT creators, and a marketplace owner. Possible value flow when conducting a transaction might be: buyer gets rid of his tokens, seller gets some of them, marketplace owner gets some of them as fees, and NFT creators get some of them as royalties.

Incentive Mechanisms Canvas

The last part of what we consider to be in the Discovery Phase is filling the Incentive Mechanisms Canvas. After successfully identifying value flows in the previous stage, token engineers search for frictions to desired behaviors and point out the undesired behaviors. For example, friction to activity on an NFT marketplace might be respecting royalty fees by marketplace owners since it reduces value flowing to the seller.

source: https://www.canva.com/design/DAFDTNKsIJs/8Ky9EoJJI7p98qKLIu2XNw/view#7

Design Phase of Token Engineering Process

The second stage of the Token Engineering Process is the Design Phase in which you make use of high-level descriptions from the previous step to come up with a specific design of the project. This will include everything that can be usually found in crypto whitepapers (e.g. governance mechanisms, incentive mechanisms, token supply, etc). After finishing the design, token engineers should represent the whole value flow and transactional logic on detailed visual diagrams. These diagrams will be a basis for creating mathematical models in the Deployment Phase. 

Token Engineering Artonomous Design Diagram
Artonomous design diagram, source: Artonomous GitHub

Objective Function

Every crypto project has some objective. The objective can consist of many goals, such as decentralization or token price. The objective function is a mathematical function assigning weights to different factors that influence the main objective in the order of their importance. This function will be a reference for machine learning algorithms in the next steps. They will try to find quantitative parameters (e.g. network fees) that maximize the output of this function.
Modified Metcalfe’s Law can serve as an inspiration during that step. It’s a framework for valuing crypto projects, but we believe that after adjustments it can also be used in this context.

Deployment Phase of Token Engineering Process

The Deployment Phase is final, but also the most demanding step in the process. It involves the implementation of machine learning algorithms that test our assumptions and optimize quantitative parameters. Token Engineering draws from Nassim Taleb’s concept of Antifragility and extensively uses feedback loops to make a system that gains from arising shocks.

Agent-based Modelling 

In agent-based modeling, we describe a set of behaviors and goals displayed by each agent participating in the system (this is why previous steps focused so much on describing stakeholders). Each agent is controlled by an autonomous AI and continuously optimizes his strategy. He learns from his experience and can mimic the behavior of other agents if he finds it effective (Reinforced Learning). This approach allows for mimicking real users, who adapt their strategies with time. An example adaptive agent would be a cryptocurrency trader, who changes his trading strategy in response to experiencing a loss of money.

Monte Carlo Simulations

Token Engineers use the Monte Carlo method to simulate the consequences of various possible interactions while taking into account the probability of their occurrence. By running a large number of simulations it’s possible to stress-test the project in multiple scenarios and identify emergent risks.

Testnet Deployment

If possible, it's highly beneficial for projects to extend the testing phase even further by letting real users use the network. Idea is the same as in agent-based testing - continuous optimization based on provided metrics. Furthermore, in case the project considers airdropping its tokens, giving them to early users is a great strategy. Even though part of the activity will be disingenuine and airdrop-oriented, such strategy still works better than most.

Time Duration

Token engineering process may take from as little as 2 weeks to as much as 5 months. It depends on the project category (Layer 1 protocol will require more time, than a simple DApp), and security requirements. For example, a bank issuing its digital token will have a very low risk tolerance.

Required Skills for Token Engineering

Token engineering is a multidisciplinary field and requires a great amount of specialized knowledge. Key knowledge areas are:

  • Systems Engineering
  • Machine Learning
  • Market Research
  • Capital Markets
  • Current trends in Web3
  • Blockchain Engineering
  • Statistics

Summary

The token engineering process consists of 3 steps: Discovery Phase, Design Phase, and Deployment Phase. It’s utilized mostly by established blockchain projects, and financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund. Even though it’s a very resource-consuming process, we believe it’s worth it. Projects that went through scrupulous design and testing before launch are much more likely to receive VC funding and be in the 10% of crypto projects that survive the bear market. Going through that process also has a symbolic meaning - it shows that the project is long-term oriented.

If you're looking to create a robust tokenomics model and go through institutional-grade testing please reach out to contact@nextrope.com. Our team is ready to help you with the token engineering process and ensure your project’s resilience in the long term.

FAQ

What does token engineering process look like?

  • Token engineering process is conducted in a 3-step methodical fashion. This includes Discovery Phase, Design Phase, and Deployment Phase. Each of these stages should be tailored to the specific needs of a project.

Is token engineering meant only for big projects?

  • We recommend that even small projects go through a simplified design and optimization process. This increases community's trust and makes sure that the tokenomics doesn't have any obvious flaws.

How long does the token engineering process take?

  • It depends on the project and may range from 2 weeks to 5 months.

What is Berachain? 🐻 ⛓️ + Proof-of-Liquidity Explained

Karolina

18 Mar 2024
What is Berachain? 🐻 ⛓️ + Proof-of-Liquidity Explained

Enter Berachain: a high-performance, EVM-compatible blockchain that is set to redefine the landscape of decentralized applications (dApps) and blockchain services. Built on the innovative Proof-of-Liquidity consensus and leveraging the robust Polaris framework alongside the CometBFT consensus engine, Berachain is poised to offer an unprecedented blend of efficiency, security, and user-centric benefits. Let's dive into what makes it a groundbreaking development in the blockchain ecosystem.

What is Berachain?

Overview

Berachain is an EVM-compatible Layer 1 (L1) blockchain that stands out through its adoption of the Proof-of-Liquidity (PoL) consensus mechanism. Designed to address the critical challenges faced by decentralized networks. It introduces a cutting-edge approach to blockchain governance and operations.

Key Features

  • High-performance Capabilities. Berachain is engineered for speed and scalability, catering to the growing demand for efficient blockchain solutions.
  • EVM Compatibility. It supports all Ethereum tooling, operations, and smart contract languages, making it a seamless transition for developers and projects from the Ethereum ecosystem.
  • Proof-of-Liquidity.This novel consensus mechanism focuses on building liquidity, decentralizing stake, and aligning the interests of validators and protocol developers.

MUST READ: Docs

EVM-Compatible vs EVM-Equivalent

EVM-Compatible

EVM compatibility means a blockchain can interact with Ethereum's ecosystem to some extent. It can interact supporting its smart contracts and tools but not replicating the entire EVM environment.

EVM-Equivalent

An EVM-equivalent blockchain, on the other hand, aims to fully replicate Ethereum's environment. It ensures complete compatibility and a smooth transition for developers and users alike.

Berachain's Position

Berachain can be considered an "EVM-equivalent-plus" blockchain. It supports all Ethereum operations, tooling, and additional functionalities that optimize for its unique Proof-of-Liquidity and abstracted use cases.

Berachain Modular First Approach

At the heart of Berachain's development philosophy is the Polaris EVM framework. It's a testament to the blockchain's commitment to modularity and flexibility. This approach allows for the easy separation of the EVM runtime layer, ensuring that Berachain can adapt and evolve without compromising on performance or security.

Proof Of Liquidity Overview

High-Level Model Objectives

  • Systemically Build Liquidity. By enhancing trading efficiency, price stability, and network growth, Berachain aims to foster a thriving ecosystem of decentralized applications.
  • Solve Stake Centralization. The PoL consensus works to distribute stake more evenly across the network, preventing monopolization and ensuring a decentralized, secure blockchain.
  • Align Protocols and Validators. Berachain encourages a symbiotic relationship between validators and the broader protocol ecosystem.

Proof-of-Liquidity vs Proof-of-Stake

Unlike traditional Proof of Stake (PoS), which often leads to stake centralization and reduced liquidity, Proof of Liquidity (PoL) introduces mechanisms to incentivize liquidity provision and ensure a fairer, more decentralized network. Berachain separates the governance token (BGT) from the chain's gas token (BERA) and incentives liquidity through BEX pools. Berachain's PoL aims to overcome the limitations of PoS, fostering a more secure and user-centric blockchain.

Berachain EVM and Modular Approach

Polaris EVM

Polaris EVM is the cornerstone of Berachain's EVM compatibility, offering developers an enhanced environment for smart contract execution that includes stateful precompiles and custom modules. This framework ensures that Berachain not only meets but exceeds the capabilities of the traditional Ethereum Virtual Machine.

CometBFT

The CometBFT consensus engine underpins Berachain's network, providing a secure and efficient mechanism for transaction verification and block production. By leveraging the principles of Byzantine fault tolerance (BFT), CometBFT ensures the integrity and resilience of the Berachain blockchain.

Conclusion

Berachain represents a significant leap forward in blockchain technology, combining the best of Ethereum's ecosystem with innovative consensus mechanisms and a modular development approach. As the blockchain landscape continues to evolve, Berachain stands out as a promising platform for developers, users, and validators alike, offering a scalable, efficient, and inclusive environment for decentralized applications and services.

Resources

For those interested in exploring further, a wealth of resources is available, including the Berachain documentation, GitHub repository, and community forums. It offers a compelling vision for the future of blockchain technology, marked by efficiency, security, and community-driven innovation.

FAQ

How is Berachain different?

  • It integrates Proof-of-Liquidity to address stake centralization and enhance liquidity, setting it apart from other blockchains.

Is Berachain EVM-compatible?

  • Yes, it supports Ethereum's tooling and smart contract languages, facilitating easy migration of dApps.

Can it handle high transaction volumes?

  • Yes, thanks to the Polaris framework and CometBFT consensus engine, it's built for scalability and high throughput.