4 ms·
Basically somebody borrowed a bunch of crypto, bought controlling “shares” (tokens) in the DAO, and voted the treasury into their own wallet. I’m curious why c
by pfraze 5y ago
Basically somebody borrowed a bunch of crypto, bought controlling “shares” (tokens) in the DAO, and voted the treasury into their own wallet.
I’m curious why controlling levels of the token were on the market, and I have to assume that’s what the creators didn’t account for: the possibility that the people who were supposed to manage this thing would be buyable at a realistic price. I’d also ask why there wasn’t some kind of time delay on important decisions like that? It’s pretty bizarre.
It doesn’t help that smart contracts are just not super easy to build. They’re just easy enough for you to think you can, but when I’ve dug into the actual complexities, it’s been pretty rough. It’s especially hard when each op costs gas, so you’re having to focus on security and efficiency at the same time. I have to imagine it disincentivizes more complex business logic around managing a DAO, like you’d expect for something like this.
- trhr 5y agoWhen you're shifting around $80m to net $182m, you set your own gas price.
- mcintyre1994 5y ago> I’m curious why controlling levels of the token were on the market, and I have to assume that’s what the creators didn’t account for: the possibility that the people who were supposed to manage this thing would be buyable at a realistic price. From the article: > A still-unidentified attacker had borrowed $80m in cryptocurrency and deposited it in the project’s silo, gaining enough voting rights in exchange to be able to pass any proposal instantly. I’m not sure but my guess is that they basically had an uncapped token that mints in exchange for deposits, and that’s used for voting. So you didn’t need to buy off existing holders, just deposit more than everyone else put together and mint more tokens than have previously existed.
- pfraze 5y agoAh. Oof. That's a bummer of a mistake.