3 ms·
Airdrops don't seem like a complete solution to me. If someone sells a lot of stolen/hacked tokens, it still decreases the value of the airdropped tokens, since
by gnarcoregrizz 8y ago
Airdrops don't seem like a complete solution to me. If someone sells a lot of stolen/hacked tokens, it still decreases the value of the airdropped tokens, since there's absolutely no recourse once the stolen ones are converted to something else. The only way to stop a hacked contract from becoming a problem is if every path to liquidity is immediately halted, but I'm not sure its realistic to do that. I'm sure there is always a long tail of exchanges and holders still transacting in the hacked tokens. People are still transacting in ETC, lol.
People not caring is probably just due to the crazy risk and volatility in crypto in general.
- deltateam 8y agoMost "smart contract vulnerabilities" don't involve the ability to steal them. Again like I said, I don't know why this article doesn't point out how benign most of these things are. so for the one example you presented, thats right it isn't a complete solution, and that one example requires its own individual discussion. This article doesn't distinguish about the level of severity of the vulnerability the reality is that most of these are as benign as any random website not getting 100% in a cursory test