> 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

> 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.