Queen Satoshee

In general, the absurd idea of social sign-in for crypto wallets comes from crypto entrepreneurs wanting to lure newbies with convenience. The risks are often hidden or downplayed in the marketing, if not outright spun as benefits

A few more updates on the Binance mess. Quite a bit has happened, but alas I was dreaming of cannoli. - First, blockchain intelligence firm TRM Labs now attributes the attack to North Korea’s TraderTraitor hacking group with high confidence. Elliptic has reached a similar conclusion, and both Reuters and AP have reported the findings. TRM estimates that approximately $6.36 billion was moved out of Binance wallets across TEN blockchains, most of it in about 20 minutes. - Some particularly interesting technical details have also emerged. According to TRM, on Ethereum the attacker used 50 pre-signed EIP-7702 authorizations, one of which allowed the attacker’s code to take over the execution of a major Binance hot wallet and repeatedly drain it. On the other affected blockchains, the attacker used ordinary transactions with VALID signatures. This strongly suggests that the attacker gained access to the infrastructure responsible for authorizing transactions across multiple blockchains. How they obtained those authorizations remains the big question. And speaking of that, Binance has now acknowledged that its initial explanation involving a compromised DevOps engineer’s laptop was incomplete. Its investigation has uncovered additional points of breach. Co-CEO Richard Teng also made sure to clarify that this was not something that could have been accomplished using a single engineer’s permissions in one action (phew). Binance maintains that it has found no evidence of private keys being leaked. But that still leaves one wondering how the attacker could obtain authorization to move billions of dollars across so many different wallets and blockchains. We will need to see the promised technical postmortem before drawing conclusions. - Now, about the money. Binance says approximately $3 BILLION of the affected assets has been frozen, with the assistance of stablecoin issuers and other organizations. This is certainly encouraging. But please remember that frozen funds are NOT necessarily recovered funds, and neither should be confused with losses already covered. A considerable amount of BTC and ETH remains beyond the reach of issuer-level freezing mechanisms. More importantly for users, Binance has now announced that it has allocated over $6.34 BILLION in company funds to replace the affected assets. According to the exchange, $5 billion is already held in the same cryptocurrencies that were affected, and it is purchasing the remaining approximately $1.34 billion through market and OTC transactions. These figures are separate from the approximately $3 billion reportedly frozen. But these are still Binance’s own statements, do not trust anything blindly at this moment. We need, among other things, independent verification that the reserves have actually been restored, and a proper accounting of the losses and assessment of the company’s finances. Binance has promised an updated Proof of Reserves. - Finally, the current situation for users. Binance says deposits (…) are operating normally, while withdrawals remain suspended. It “expects” withdrawals to resume within 48 hours of its announcement early this morning. The exchange has also corrected its original incident announcement, which initially stated that both deposits and withdrawals were suspended. There is still no verified evidence of native DOGE having been stolen in this incident. For now, I would obviously continue to be very cautious about leaving any unnecessary funds on the exchange. Withdraw when you can. As usual, ignore anybody contacting you privately with offers to help recover funds or bypass withdrawal restrictions.

Of course, you are defining Dogecoin's success by how much capital people deposit into DeFi protocols, which introduce varying degrees of additional risk for their users. And, of course, that happens to be exactly the business your company wants to build. Dogecoin was never meant to be Ethereum or Solana. It grew up (for some) with the promise of being a funny decentralized, permissionless currency. Others, saw (and still see it) as something worth hoarding. But in the end, simplicity is one of its greatest strengths, not a deficiency. That's also what attracted some of your own heroes to it in the first place. Also, TVL is certainly not a measure of how good a currency is. Locking more DOGE into two thousand crappy, poorly maintained financial apps like those on ETH or SOL (each risky in its own way for users, now more than ever, because transferring risk onto uninformed users is one of the most profitable business models in crypto) doesn't automatically make it more useful or more valuable for the average user. Of course, I know it's the wet dream of many crypto entrepreneurs, eager, if not seemingly desperate, to get their hands on all that liquidity that ordinary people are holding. Build whatever commercial products you want around Dogecoin, with your owners and colleagues. If they are good, transparent, and worth the risks they introduce, people will use them. Heck, actually people will use them even if they are not good and totally immoral schemes but they create addiction - this is the pumpfun/meme token business model I suspect you enjoy too and that you hope your users will enjoy. Just, don't present your company's business model as something Dogecoin itself NEEDS. That marketing blabbering has no power on many people, including on the billionaires you desperately try to gravitate around.

It means you have not been building casinos for them and with them The kid talks and writes like a thousand other SOL casino kids. They do not know how to play fair, they do not want to play fair, they think everybody must like the casino they want to build to extract as much as they can. And yet they are not even able to build the casino without stealing the work of others.