12 ms·

DeFi protocol BadgerDAO exploited for $120M in front-end attack

128 points by gzer0 5y ago

malthaus 5y ago
"Decentralized" also means nobody takes accountability, something a lot of our society is built upon, evolved over many generations. But a mix of snake-oil salesmen and nerds dreaming of utopia try to convince everybody that their approach is somehow magically better.
- splendidHaiku 5y ago
  No. "Decentralized" means everybody takes accountability, as opposed to just one corporation. But you have to make use of it - e.g. by using https://nexusmutual.io/ https://nexusmutual.io/.
  - bildung 5y ago
    "everybody takes accountability" and "nobody takes accountability" have the same meaning. Accountability is tightly linked to delegation, and essentially behaves like a normalized variable.
yawnxyz 5y ago
> all smart contracts have been paused to prevent further withdrawals I'm curious — how do you just "pause a smart contract"? Is that written into the code?
- k__ 5y ago
  I'd think so, yes. https://ethereum-blockchain-developer.com/022-pausing-destroying-smart-contracts/03-pausing-smart-contracts/#smart-contract-pausing-functionality https://ethereum-blockchain-developer.com/022-pausing-destro...
- danielvf 5y ago
  On ethereum, all tokens are actually custom computer programs. This token's program contained code to all pausing all the ability to have it transferred on behalf of an approved third-party.
LightG 5y ago
Shocking.
rvz 5y ago
Another day another DeFi project rekt. What happened: > The front end to the BadgerDAO website was reportedly acccessed, according to comments in the project's Discord channel, and used to intercept transactions. One admin said it appears that an API key for Cloudflare was compromised. > One user had around 900 bitcoin ($50.8 million) worth of tokens stolen in a single transaction. Another lost $5 million worth of tokens in one go. Once that BTC is gone, it is gone. DAOs seem to have a lot of trust issues beyond a simple front-end attack and not even you should trust that they can keep their own websites secure. Where are the regulations, audits and security checks for this thing? Oh dear.
- throwaway248329 5y ago
  Regulations in DeFi would do nothing but turning it into traditional, permissioned finance but on blockchain. Nobody wants that.
  - pjc50 5y ago
    Nobody wants to lose all their money because the frontend got hacked, and yet here we are.
    - throwaway248329 5y ago
      Nobody forces you to put your money in DeFi protocols.
      - MauranKilom 5y ago
        That's a non-argument. Nobody forces me to buy baby milk. Yet it makes perfect sense for the FDA to regulate what is allowed to be in baby milk.
        throwaway248329 5y ago
        Baby milk is a disingenuous analogy since it's not expected to be consumed by the buyer. If consenting adults voluntarily went out of their way to get an unregulated product, without harming anyone but themselves, then why should they be stopped?
pjc50 5y ago
Reminder that every DAO is a self-administering bug bounty for all of the value under its control. Reminder also that you don't have to "hack etherum"; there are plenty of spots more vulnerable than the blockchain itself at which value can be stolen. (I would however be interested to know where all this stolen value ends up, and how well it can ultimately be laundered into the real world, or if this is more like driving a truck into an ATM that causes far more loss than is actually successfully stolen)
- bagpuss 5y ago
  Stolen ETH goes here to get a shave and a new suit, then it can go wherever it likes https://tornado.cash/ https://tornado.cash/
  - josephd79 5y ago
    You know, outside of use cases for scammers and hackers. This protocol is actually pretty interesting. I'm actually surprised it's not getting more attention then what it already has.
  - codethief 5y ago
    Could someone ELI5 how Tornado Cash achieves (or doesn't achieve) privacy? Their FAQ say: > Is it possible to compromise the protocol and find out information about depositors? -- No, Tornado Cash is a decentralized protocol based on zero knowledge proofs. Its smart contracts are immutable, have no admins, and the proofs are based on strong cryptography. Only the user possessing the Note is able to link deposit and withdrawal. That very much sounds like an impossibility statement like "Use Tornado Cash and no one will be able to trace your transaction". OTOH, they also say that > After depositing, users should wait some amount of time before withdrawing to improve their privacy. and that > To preserve privacy a relayer can be used to withdraw to an address with no ETH balance. So it seems privacy is not a binary switch here and, instead, it can be "improved" and "preserved". But what is it then? Can deposit and withdrawal be linked or not? Are the privacy guarantees as absolute and strong as the FAQ make them out to be?
    - 5y ago
fergie 5y ago
It says a lot that these articles are always quantified in dollars.
- LeonM 5y ago
  It also said enough about Coinbase that they went public on an actual stock market, for actual money. Instead of doing for some blockchain buzzword ICO.
- yawnxyz 5y ago
  I guess it's hard to quantify an entire portfolio in their own fluctuating valuations? Would be interesting if they listed a longer list of their actual holdings though, but $usd (and not just any fiat) is still a great proxy for understanding the impact.
- Ensorceled 5y ago
  Almost all thefts are quantified in dollars unless the numbers on the thing stolen are also newsworthy. For instance, the Quebec Maple Syrup Heist is reported as both "3,000 tons of maple syrup" because, wow, that's a shit ton of maple syrup AND that the value of the heist was an "estimated $18.7 million".
Manfred 5y ago
Reading guide: DeFi: Decentralized Finance DOA: decentralized autonomous organization; an organization represented by rules encoded as a computer program that is transparent
- astrange 5y ago
  Of course, it may be decentralized but many projects advertise it as "distributed computing" which it isn't. Since every node has to do the same calculations, it's only as fast as a single computer. It's great at instantly losing all your money to a teenage hacker though.
- yawnxyz 5y ago
  DAO* not "DOA"
  - Yizahi 5y ago
    Actually DOA is more fitting :)
  - Ensorceled 5y ago
    Yeah, quite the Freudian slip ...
- rvz 5y ago
  > DOA: decentralized autonomous organization; DAOs are actually DOAs 'Dead on Arrivals' due to fundamental trust issues.
m00dy 5y ago
I think BadgerDAO contract is still safe. Changing frontend would still require a new approve permission for the new contract address that should give user a hint about something is wrong.
deweller 5y ago
It is important to note that this was not a smart contract exploit. The point of failure here was the website UI. Users were sent to a malicious website due to a stolen Cloudflare API key. What can DAOs do to prevent the single point of failure that is the web front end? Is there a reliable second level of security to ensure you are at the site you intended? The SSL certificate didn't work because Cloudflare was still terminating the SSL connection.
- throwaway248329 5y ago
  Not DAOs, but users can examine the transaction that they are prompted to sign and make sure that it is interacting with the right smart contract.
  - Nextgrid 5y ago
    That technically just moves the problem one step further. How are users supposed to learn what is the right smart contract to begin with?
    - throwaway248329 5y ago
      Smart contracts are immutable, so realistically, once you know which one is the right one you can just bookmark it. If you don't want to trust anyone at all, you can read the contract code and make individual judgement whether it does what it's supposed to do.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - koolba 5y ago
      > How are users supposed to learn what is the right smart contract to begin with? That's the definition of due diligence. It's not one thing and the specifics of what's involved vary depending upon the investment. At the end of the day, the onus is upon the user to determine if it's a fraud. Being difficult or down right impossible for a non-technical person to audit a contract address or the contract code itself isn't a license for users to ignore that risk. It means they're accepting it in its entirety. Or they can defer to a trusted third party to make that determination for them. But even then, they're still on the hook for trusting that third party.
Yizahi 5y ago
Just remember - code is law. No takesies-backsies :)
- k__ 5y ago
  If they didn't use a centralized service like Cloudflare, this might not even have happened, lol.
  - root_axis 5y ago
    Perhaps, but we know this kind of thing happens all the time even without something like Cloudflare in the mix
- splendidHaiku 5y ago
  The person who lost the 50 million probably insured his money with something like https://nexusmutual.io/ https://nexusmutual.io/. If you invest a large sum, you should always insure it against hacks.
  - hbbio 5y ago
    Being decentralized does not prevent them from making the job of an insurer. Nexus Mutual just told on Twitter that since it is not a smart contract attack, they're not going to pay.
  - koolba 5y ago
    The only thing riskier than smart contracts would be smart contract insurance products atop smart contracts. I'm sure they only allow for vetted contracts, but the incident discussed in this article was not a contract hack, it was a website hack to change the approve addresses. If that type of thing is going to be covered then it's well beyond smart contract due diligence. That would require evaluating end-to-end op sec practices on an ongoing basis.
  - NationalPark 5y ago
    https://twitter.com/nexusmutual/status/1466395880806928387?s=21 https://twitter.com/nexusmutual/status/1466395880806928387?s... Looks like they’re refusing to cover it because it was a supply chain attack.
root_axis 5y ago
By default, whenever such hacks occur, I suspect the project creators are in on it unless proven otherwise. When you're talking about multi million dollar payloads that can be stolen without scrutiny from law enforcement, the incentive to abscond is huge.
bob332 5y ago
Hhhah crypto is for morons
knorker 5y ago
Once again cryptocurrency shills are disproven in their core belief that they can do finance better than status quo.
- corndoge 5y ago
  Can you elaborate on how this event constitutes proof of your claim?
  - brootstrap 5y ago
    i'm not worried about my DIS shares getting hacked as they chill in the digital world compounding interest. It appears that investing in crypto is not quite as safe? One of my bros got hacked in mt gox and since then i've been a bit weary of putting serious sums of money into it (i have maybe 1-5% of my portfolio in crypto and not planning on betting the house anytime soon).
    - corndoge 5y ago
      It's certainly not as safe. And one hack doesn't constitute "proof" that the entire space is a total fail at beating traditional finance, which should be obvious. Instead we have people like OP making sensational claims about "shills", providing nothing of value to any conversation about the topic.
      - knorker 5y ago
        It's not one. It's like one per week. And every smart contract is a self-funded hack bounty. Smart contracts are a complete misunderstanding of what contracts are, and what the hard parts of the space of contracts are. They're simply changing the simple problem to be enormously complex, without making the hard problems any easier. In fact it makes the hard problems harder too. causing great public interest and excitement. > OP making sensational claims Def 1. "causing great public interest and excitement" Well, not really. This story is just "huh, another one". Brings to mind the meme "I'm shocked, shocked!, to see another one of the cryptocurrency LARPers topple over" Def 2. "very good indeed; very impressive or attractive." Thank you!
rfcenturies 5y ago
Wow
kisamoto 5y ago
Can someone ELI5 DAOs please? Ideally without the buzzwords and more focused on the value they create and how. I'm a software engineer but the idea of a "smart" contract working as an "organisation", none of which can be undone when there is an error seems like it has massive risk attached and little to no benefit. It doesn't seem "decentralized" as there are still organised parties to write and deploy code and the tokens that inevitably belong with each DAO are usually majority held by the creators. Currently I like the __idea__ of a DAO but see them massively overhyped and unable to describe or prove their actual value. Please change my view.
- daoming 5y ago
  You have to accept the premise that code as an absolute authority is a good thing, if you accept that premise, a DAO makes a lot of sense and can deliver a lot of value: no longer are we beholden to the weakness of corruptible man, we are now empowered by the strength of noble technology. of course, as a software engineer, you know that is a hellish nightmare because the code we write is fallible so this entire thing makes no sense whatsoever.
  - kisamoto 5y ago
    Ok I can (hypothetically) accept that. Let's imagine I'm creating a fresh business and choose to structure it as a DAO, does this mean that the ever understanding code is the CEO steering the company? Or is the DAO the product of the company itself? I don't understand the relationship here. Following on from that, I am the party that writes the code for the DAO. Now I can claim that my code is perfect and we can trust the machines to execute it. But I'm still running the deployment of it and the weakness of corruptible man can still abuse the trust given to the code they create.
    - daoming 5y ago
      There's difficulty in translating these new concepts into examples using existing real-world concepts but as a broad generalisation: a DAO is a "company" that the shareholders govern and the DAO's code is the shareholder agreement which has zero implicit rights or behaviours. The DAO itself could have code that enables something like, "the code for this DAO can be updated as if 50% of token holders vote yes" and then 50% of token holders could vote yes to a code change that appoints a CEO who has absolute authority or they could vote to change the code so that no vote could ever take place in future, and the code becomes "stuck" forever. The code for a DAO lives and runs on the blockchain, so the integrity of the DAO is linked to the integrity of the network on which it runs: although there's no absolutes, in the case of a network like Ethereum, it is for all intents and purposes, secure, so deployment and execution is not a network-level attack vector. Does that help? The reason DAOs are considered _the future_ by some is the implicit assumption that perfect code is possible to produce. Many non-software engineers believe that _if we have the integrity of the network to guarantee the code cannot be changed without consent, then we can have absolute faith in the code_... but of course, as software engineers, we know code is very fallible, whether it's unintended side effects or malicious backdoors or just an honest misunderstanding of what the code is meant to do, there's millions of ways for code to go wrong long before we need to worry about code integrity.

128 points by gzer0 5y ago

"Decentralized" also means nobody takes accountability, something a lot of our society is built upon, evolved over many generations. But a mix of snake-oil salesmen and nerds dreaming of utopia try to convince everybody that their approach is somehow magically better.

splendidHaiku 5y ago
No. "Decentralized" means everybody takes accountability, as opposed to just one corporation. But you have to make use of it - e.g. by using https://nexusmutual.io/ https://nexusmutual.io/.
- bildung 5y ago
  "everybody takes accountability" and "nobody takes accountability" have the same meaning. Accountability is tightly linked to delegation, and essentially behaves like a normalized variable.

yawnxyz 5y ago

> all smart contracts have been paused to prevent further withdrawals I'm curious — how do you just "pause a smart contract"? Is that written into the code?

k__ 5y ago
I'd think so, yes. https://ethereum-blockchain-developer.com/022-pausing-destroying-smart-contracts/03-pausing-smart-contracts/#smart-contract-pausing-functionality https://ethereum-blockchain-developer.com/022-pausing-destro...
danielvf 5y ago
On ethereum, all tokens are actually custom computer programs. This token's program contained code to all pausing all the ability to have it transferred on behalf of an approved third-party.

LightG 5y ago

Shocking.

rvz 5y ago

Another day another DeFi project rekt. What happened: > The front end to the BadgerDAO website was reportedly acccessed, according to comments in the project's Discord channel, and used to intercept transactions. One admin said it appears that an API key for Cloudflare was compromised. > One user had around 900 bitcoin ($50.8 million) worth of tokens stolen in a single transaction. Another lost $5 million worth of tokens in one go. Once that BTC is gone, it is gone. DAOs seem to have a lot of trust issues beyond a simple front-end attack and not even you should trust that they can keep their own websites secure. Where are the regulations, audits and security checks for this thing? Oh dear.

throwaway248329 5y ago
Regulations in DeFi would do nothing but turning it into traditional, permissioned finance but on blockchain. Nobody wants that.
- pjc50 5y ago
  Nobody wants to lose all their money because the frontend got hacked, and yet here we are.
  - throwaway248329 5y ago
    Nobody forces you to put your money in DeFi protocols.
    - MauranKilom 5y ago
      That's a non-argument. Nobody forces me to buy baby milk. Yet it makes perfect sense for the FDA to regulate what is allowed to be in baby milk.
      - throwaway248329 5y ago
        Baby milk is a disingenuous analogy since it's not expected to be consumed by the buyer. If consenting adults voluntarily went out of their way to get an unregulated product, without harming anyone but themselves, then why should they be stopped?

pjc50 5y ago

Reminder that every DAO is a self-administering bug bounty for all of the value under its control. Reminder also that you don't have to "hack etherum"; there are plenty of spots more vulnerable than the blockchain itself at which value can be stolen. (I would however be interested to know where all this stolen value ends up, and how well it can ultimately be laundered into the real world, or if this is more like driving a truck into an ATM that causes far more loss than is actually successfully stolen)

bagpuss 5y ago
Stolen ETH goes here to get a shave and a new suit, then it can go wherever it likes https://tornado.cash/ https://tornado.cash/
- josephd79 5y ago
  You know, outside of use cases for scammers and hackers. This protocol is actually pretty interesting. I'm actually surprised it's not getting more attention then what it already has.
- codethief 5y ago
  Could someone ELI5 how Tornado Cash achieves (or doesn't achieve) privacy? Their FAQ say: > Is it possible to compromise the protocol and find out information about depositors? -- No, Tornado Cash is a decentralized protocol based on zero knowledge proofs. Its smart contracts are immutable, have no admins, and the proofs are based on strong cryptography. Only the user possessing the Note is able to link deposit and withdrawal. That very much sounds like an impossibility statement like "Use Tornado Cash and no one will be able to trace your transaction". OTOH, they also say that > After depositing, users should wait some amount of time before withdrawing to improve their privacy. and that > To preserve privacy a relayer can be used to withdraw to an address with no ETH balance. So it seems privacy is not a binary switch here and, instead, it can be "improved" and "preserved". But what is it then? Can deposit and withdrawal be linked or not? Are the privacy guarantees as absolute and strong as the FAQ make them out to be?
  - 5y ago

fergie 5y ago

It says a lot that these articles are always quantified in dollars.

LeonM 5y ago
It also said enough about Coinbase that they went public on an actual stock market, for actual money. Instead of doing for some blockchain buzzword ICO.
yawnxyz 5y ago
I guess it's hard to quantify an entire portfolio in their own fluctuating valuations? Would be interesting if they listed a longer list of their actual holdings though, but $usd (and not just any fiat) is still a great proxy for understanding the impact.
Ensorceled 5y ago
Almost all thefts are quantified in dollars unless the numbers on the thing stolen are also newsworthy. For instance, the Quebec Maple Syrup Heist is reported as both "3,000 tons of maple syrup" because, wow, that's a shit ton of maple syrup AND that the value of the heist was an "estimated $18.7 million".

Manfred 5y ago

Reading guide: DeFi: Decentralized Finance DOA: decentralized autonomous organization; an organization represented by rules encoded as a computer program that is transparent

astrange 5y ago
Of course, it may be decentralized but many projects advertise it as "distributed computing" which it isn't. Since every node has to do the same calculations, it's only as fast as a single computer. It's great at instantly losing all your money to a teenage hacker though.
yawnxyz 5y ago
DAO* not "DOA"
- Yizahi 5y ago
  Actually DOA is more fitting :)
- Ensorceled 5y ago
  Yeah, quite the Freudian slip ...
rvz 5y ago
> DOA: decentralized autonomous organization; DAOs are actually DOAs 'Dead on Arrivals' due to fundamental trust issues.

m00dy 5y ago

I think BadgerDAO contract is still safe. Changing frontend would still require a new approve permission for the new contract address that should give user a hint about something is wrong.

deweller 5y ago

It is important to note that this was not a smart contract exploit. The point of failure here was the website UI. Users were sent to a malicious website due to a stolen Cloudflare API key. What can DAOs do to prevent the single point of failure that is the web front end? Is there a reliable second level of security to ensure you are at the site you intended? The SSL certificate didn't work because Cloudflare was still terminating the SSL connection.

throwaway248329 5y ago
Not DAOs, but users can examine the transaction that they are prompted to sign and make sure that it is interacting with the right smart contract.
- Nextgrid 5y ago
  That technically just moves the problem one step further. How are users supposed to learn what is the right smart contract to begin with?
  - throwaway248329 5y ago
    Smart contracts are immutable, so realistically, once you know which one is the right one you can just bookmark it. If you don't want to trust anyone at all, you can read the contract code and make individual judgement whether it does what it's supposed to do.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - koolba 5y ago
    > How are users supposed to learn what is the right smart contract to begin with? That's the definition of due diligence. It's not one thing and the specifics of what's involved vary depending upon the investment. At the end of the day, the onus is upon the user to determine if it's a fraud. Being difficult or down right impossible for a non-technical person to audit a contract address or the contract code itself isn't a license for users to ignore that risk. It means they're accepting it in its entirety. Or they can defer to a trusted third party to make that determination for them. But even then, they're still on the hook for trusting that third party.

Yizahi 5y ago

Just remember - code is law. No takesies-backsies :)

k__ 5y ago
If they didn't use a centralized service like Cloudflare, this might not even have happened, lol.
- root_axis 5y ago
  Perhaps, but we know this kind of thing happens all the time even without something like Cloudflare in the mix
splendidHaiku 5y ago
The person who lost the 50 million probably insured his money with something like https://nexusmutual.io/ https://nexusmutual.io/. If you invest a large sum, you should always insure it against hacks.
- hbbio 5y ago
  Being decentralized does not prevent them from making the job of an insurer. Nexus Mutual just told on Twitter that since it is not a smart contract attack, they're not going to pay.
- koolba 5y ago
  The only thing riskier than smart contracts would be smart contract insurance products atop smart contracts. I'm sure they only allow for vetted contracts, but the incident discussed in this article was not a contract hack, it was a website hack to change the approve addresses. If that type of thing is going to be covered then it's well beyond smart contract due diligence. That would require evaluating end-to-end op sec practices on an ongoing basis.
- NationalPark 5y ago
  https://twitter.com/nexusmutual/status/1466395880806928387?s=21 https://twitter.com/nexusmutual/status/1466395880806928387?s... Looks like they’re refusing to cover it because it was a supply chain attack.

root_axis 5y ago

By default, whenever such hacks occur, I suspect the project creators are in on it unless proven otherwise. When you're talking about multi million dollar payloads that can be stolen without scrutiny from law enforcement, the incentive to abscond is huge.

bob332 5y ago

Hhhah crypto is for morons

knorker 5y ago

Once again cryptocurrency shills are disproven in their core belief that they can do finance better than status quo.

corndoge 5y ago
Can you elaborate on how this event constitutes proof of your claim?
- brootstrap 5y ago
  i'm not worried about my DIS shares getting hacked as they chill in the digital world compounding interest. It appears that investing in crypto is not quite as safe? One of my bros got hacked in mt gox and since then i've been a bit weary of putting serious sums of money into it (i have maybe 1-5% of my portfolio in crypto and not planning on betting the house anytime soon).
  - corndoge 5y ago
    It's certainly not as safe. And one hack doesn't constitute "proof" that the entire space is a total fail at beating traditional finance, which should be obvious. Instead we have people like OP making sensational claims about "shills", providing nothing of value to any conversation about the topic.
    - knorker 5y ago
      It's not one. It's like one per week. And every smart contract is a self-funded hack bounty. Smart contracts are a complete misunderstanding of what contracts are, and what the hard parts of the space of contracts are. They're simply changing the simple problem to be enormously complex, without making the hard problems any easier. In fact it makes the hard problems harder too. causing great public interest and excitement. > OP making sensational claims Def 1. "causing great public interest and excitement" Well, not really. This story is just "huh, another one". Brings to mind the meme "I'm shocked, shocked!, to see another one of the cryptocurrency LARPers topple over" Def 2. "very good indeed; very impressive or attractive." Thank you!

rfcenturies 5y ago

Wow

kisamoto 5y ago

Can someone ELI5 DAOs please? Ideally without the buzzwords and more focused on the value they create and how. I'm a software engineer but the idea of a "smart" contract working as an "organisation", none of which can be undone when there is an error seems like it has massive risk attached and little to no benefit. It doesn't seem "decentralized" as there are still organised parties to write and deploy code and the tokens that inevitably belong with each DAO are usually majority held by the creators. Currently I like the __idea__ of a DAO but see them massively overhyped and unable to describe or prove their actual value. Please change my view.

daoming 5y ago
You have to accept the premise that code as an absolute authority is a good thing, if you accept that premise, a DAO makes a lot of sense and can deliver a lot of value: no longer are we beholden to the weakness of corruptible man, we are now empowered by the strength of noble technology. of course, as a software engineer, you know that is a hellish nightmare because the code we write is fallible so this entire thing makes no sense whatsoever.
- kisamoto 5y ago
  Ok I can (hypothetically) accept that. Let's imagine I'm creating a fresh business and choose to structure it as a DAO, does this mean that the ever understanding code is the CEO steering the company? Or is the DAO the product of the company itself? I don't understand the relationship here. Following on from that, I am the party that writes the code for the DAO. Now I can claim that my code is perfect and we can trust the machines to execute it. But I'm still running the deployment of it and the weakness of corruptible man can still abuse the trust given to the code they create.
  - daoming 5y ago
    There's difficulty in translating these new concepts into examples using existing real-world concepts but as a broad generalisation: a DAO is a "company" that the shareholders govern and the DAO's code is the shareholder agreement which has zero implicit rights or behaviours. The DAO itself could have code that enables something like, "the code for this DAO can be updated as if 50% of token holders vote yes" and then 50% of token holders could vote yes to a code change that appoints a CEO who has absolute authority or they could vote to change the code so that no vote could ever take place in future, and the code becomes "stuck" forever. The code for a DAO lives and runs on the blockchain, so the integrity of the DAO is linked to the integrity of the network on which it runs: although there's no absolutes, in the case of a network like Ethereum, it is for all intents and purposes, secure, so deployment and execution is not a network-level attack vector. Does that help? The reason DAOs are considered _the future_ by some is the implicit assumption that perfect code is possible to produce. Many non-software engineers believe that _if we have the integrity of the network to guarantee the code cannot be changed without consent, then we can have absolute faith in the code_... but of course, as software engineers, we know code is very fallible, whether it's unintended side effects or malicious backdoors or just an honest misunderstanding of what the code is meant to do, there's millions of ways for code to go wrong long before we need to worry about code integrity.