Compound · 1484

Data: Bofur Capital suffered address poisoning attacks and lost approximately $2 million

According to PeckShieldAlert monitoring, addresses marked as Bofur Capital suffered address poisoning attacks after withdrawing funds from Compound, and lost about $2 million. The phisher sent a 0.0002 USDC dust transaction, falsifying a similar address. The victim misused the wrong address when copying and pasting, causing the funds to be stolen. The stolen funds have been exchanged for approximately 2 million DAI.

16h ago

US Stock Value Investing Is Heading Into Another Trap

Source: Shenchao TechFlow Original title: (Opinion: Value investing in US stocks is not equal to fundamental investment) When “fundamentals are dead” becomes a consensus, investors who blindly organize giants will eventually experience astonishing capital destruction. Guide: When the market shouted “fundamentals are dead” and the capital frenzy formed a group of tech giants, the author used an astronomy discovery to unravel the logical loopholes behind this narrative. Starting from the composition of valuation multiples, this article reminds investors to distinguish between the true quality of an enterprise and the premium that the market is willing to pay. It is particularly cautionary about long-term allocation in the crypto and technology sector. I promise this introduction won't be as long as the last one on the weather. But please give me 90 seconds. More than 100 years ago, a woman named Henrietta Levitt was doing the tedious job of measuring the brightness of thousands of stars on photographic negatives (the way they were imaged before film appeared). She noticed one characteristic of a class of pulsating stars: the slower they pulsate, the brighter they themselves are. ¹ This might just seem a little interesting today, like “OK, that's pretty cool.” But at the time, astronomers couldn't tell the difference between a dark star very close to Earth and a very bright star far away. For them, the two left the same stain on the photographic film. Visual brightness is a messy mix of these two variables: how bright the thing itself is, and how far away it is from us. Henrietta's work decouples these two things: if you can observe the rate of pulsation, you can know its true luminosity; if you know its true luminosity, you can reverse the distance based on how dark it looks. Astronomers call it “standard candlelight.” A few years later, a man named Edwin Hubble discovered one of these pulsating stars, applied Levitt's math, and discovered what he had always thought was a cloud of gas within our galaxy; in fact, it was an entire independent galaxy, one million light years away. So in simple terms, the observable universe has grown about a trillion times larger, just because one person has figured out how to tell the difference between what things look like and what they actually look like. That in itself is obviously pretty cool. But another interesting thing is that around the same time period, two other astronomers each independently drew a scatterplot. One axis was actual luminosity, and the other axis was temperature. They discovered that stars are not randomly distributed in this space, but rather clustered into different families. The meaning behind this is: stars with the exact same visual brightness may and do belong to a completely different family, have a completely different past, and most importantly, have a completely different future... So what is written in the star? Over the past few years, there has been much discussion about markets, narratives, capital, company building, and financial nihilism. This feeling seems to have reached a feverish climax as the tech and financial world begins to face a very different future than a few decades ago. What is particularly clear is that separating progress from asset prices has become more noisy and in many ways more repulsive. But as an investor who makes a living by buying assets that (hopefully) outperform, a simple framework is: forward returns are roughly equal to growth in fundamentals multiplied by changes in valuation multiples (and multiplied by the dividends you've collected along the way). In this case, the valuation multiplier can very cleanly correspond to the smudges on the photographic film. It's an observable data point, but it entangles two things that the market can't directly see: how good the company actually is, and how far (or how long) its future cash flow is now. I think most of the money that can be made comes from investors who are most capable of unraveling these two variables earlier than others (or “perception of differences”), and we will continue to see astonishing capital ruin for investors who treat their stains as stars. Value investing is not equal to fundamental investing. I think there is a misunderstood view: fundamental investing has historically dominated the creation of excess returns. Most of these legends come from the Graham, Buffett, and Tiger Foundation lineage, as well as numerous narratives built around this group of people. It is believed that by some point in the 2000s, this approach was no longer effective, and anyone who invested in this way was overwhelmed by momentum, trends, and “direct buying tech giants.” The conclusion was (and still is?) It's “fundamentals are dead.” ² The modern version of “fundamentals don't matter” itself isn't stupid. It's rooted in a lot of ideas that many of us on the Compound team have written before. The biggest companies get the most mechanical purchases, and the software industry has a winner-take-all economic law. AI means that giants can transform scale into moats faster than challengers, and there are also reasons why the market's microstructure embeds momentum more deeply into our market infrastructure. These are all real...

1d ago深潮TechFlow#US stocks

Compound Finance Approves Record $52 Million Budget to Switch to Institutional Clients

Comparing news, decentralized lending protocol Compound Finance has completed leadership adjustments and approved a record budget of $52 million. The total hedging value of the agreement has dropped from a peak of $12 billion in 2021 to $1.2 billion, and is seeking to resume growth. According to reports, Compound Finance initially turned to service institutional clients to develop real-world asset products, partner integration solutions, and credit infrastructure to meet traditional financial compliance and technical standards. Compound Finance's new leadership team and large budget are in line with the overall shift to serve financial institutions in the decentralized finance sector. Overall assets in this sector were previously reduced due to weak markets and security breaches. (CoinDesk)

5d ago

Crypto Agent commercialization is accelerating, why are stablecoins the most critical part?

Core view: For AI agents to become real economic agents, the core obstacle is that traditional payment systems cannot support their autonomous payments. Stablecoins represented by USDC, along with dedicated infrastructure launched by companies such as Coinbase, Circle, and Stripe, are building a native programmable, all-weather, small, high-frequency “currency layer” for AI agents, spawning a program-driven on-chain microeconomy. Key elements: 1. Four major barriers to traditional payments: Agents cannot pass the identity barrier (no ID card), authorization (verification code required), time (not 7 x 24 hours), and cost (high fixed processing fee), and cannot perform small-amount high-frequency transactions. 2. Native advantages of stablecoins: programmable (automatic code execution), no license (self-generated wallet), 7 x 24 hours, transparent accounts and stable value, perfect for agent payment needs. 3. Implementation practices of leading companies: Coinbase launched AgentKit and X402 protocols (more than 50 million transactions have been processed); Circle launched the CCTP cross-chain protocol and AgentStack; Stripe launched a stablecoin API and supported USDC subscription payments. 4. Typical application scenario 1 (ultra-small payment): The x402 protocol and Circle's Gateway Nanopayments achieve $0.000001 micropayments, unlocking the long-term economy of pay-per-use billing for API calls, data access, etc. 5. Typical application scenario 2 (automatic generation): AI agents can achieve “self-hematopoiesis” through yield-bearing stablecoins (such as aUSDC), cover operating costs with interest, and platforms such as Ymax can achieve 8-12% annual stablecoin returns. 6. Large-scale implementation challenges: Private key management is vulnerable to attacks (such as the Owockibot incident), gaps in compliance (agents cannot be identified), and inaccurate AI intentions may lead to irreversible financial losses. Generative AI is changing from a “chatbot” to an AI agent (AI agent) that can do things by itself. A real question then popped up: How do these silicon-based “employees” receive money and how do they pay? Traditional banking stuff — real-name authentication, manual authorization, public accounts — inherently disapproves of AI agents. One answer that is rapidly evolving is to use stablecoins (USDC, USDT, and stablecoins with interest) to create a native “currency layer” for AI. This article will break down the implementation of leading companies such as Coinbase, Circle, and Stripe in this field, while also discussing compliance and security risks. The technical infrastructure is ready, but how to drive it is still a big problem. 1. The “payment breakpoint” encountered in the commercialization of AI agents Today's AI agents are already very capable: book air tickets, write codes, adjust interfaces... but they get stuck as soon as they get to the “payment” step. Traditional payment systems are designed for humans — you have to have an ID card, enter a verification code, operate on weekdays, and have a low processing fee for each transaction. These are all barriers for agents. Specifically, traditional payment systems set up four hurdles for agents: identity barriers: opening a bank account or credit card requires an ID card, face recognition, or even bank transactions, and agents can't even pull it out. Authorization: SMS verification codes, manual confirmation, and 3D security authentication are often required during payment, and agents cannot click buttons even if they cannot receive SMS. Time limit: Banks only process transfers on weekdays and business hours, while agents work 7×24 hours. Cost barrier: Each transaction has a fixed processing fee, such as starting at 30 cents for credit cards, so the pay-per-use model of $0.001 doesn't work at all. However, the financial behavior of agents requires exactly this kind of small, high-frequency charge (such as per number of API calls, per usage). The more fundamental problem is that the entire payment system has never considered direct “program to program” transfers. Even between two technology companies, the process is often: the agent generates an order → sends an email → person approves → person logs in to online banking to transfer money → each other's financial reconciliation. The agent can only do the first two steps and the final record. The most important step, “money from A to B”, must be done by hand. Current experiments: they are all modelling...

18d ago22#AI #stablecoins #wallets

Data: BarnBridge governance attack is suspected to have caused approximately $776,000 in losses

Comparatively, according to BlockSec Phalcon's monitoring, the BarnBridge SMART Yield (cUSDC) protocol was attacked on Ethereum and lost about 776,000 US dollars, which is suspected to be a governance attack. The attackers first obtained DAO governance rights, then upgraded the SmartYield/Controller agent to a malicious implementation contract. The contract then called CompoundProvider's _TakeOffered privilege function to transfer the aggregated funds to the attackers through TransferFees using USDC authorizations pre-existing in 50 user accounts.

38d ago

Is ETH welcoming a “golden July”? Institutions and supply and demand may become new catalysts to push Ethereum into a “new cycle”

Comparing news, Steven Ehrlich, head of research at Sharplink, posted on the X platform that Ethereum (ETH) started strongly in July 2026 and has risen about 11% so far this month. Historical data shows that investors should pay attention to the ETH market performance in July. In the past 10 years, ETH achieved a total of 4 July gains, and the average increase in these 4 months reached 43%. Since 2020, July was also the strongest month for ETH, with an average increase of around 27%, ahead of other months. The core strength of the ETH July market is not simply volatility, but the asymmetry between ups and downs: when it rose in July, the average increase was about 43%; in the year of decline, the average decline was only about 5% (2020 to 2025). Historically, ETH's strong performance in July was often accompanied by Ethereum's own catalyst: July 2020:54% increase, “DeFi Summer” launched, and Compound launched the COMP token, triggering a boom in revenue mining. DeFi's total hedging volume (TVL) grew from around $1 billion to $4 billion in a few weeks, and DEX's monthly trading volume increased 174%, benefiting ETH as DeFi infrastructure. July 2022:58% increase, the Ethereum Merge (The Merge) upgrade schedule was set on July 14, market sentiment rebounded from a low post LUNA and 3AC crisis, and around $337 million of short positions were liquidated in 3 days. July 2025:49% increase, the US “GENIUS Act” was signed, and the monthly capital inflow of spot ETH ETFs reached a record of about 5.4 billion US dollars. At the same time, corporate capital accelerated the allocation of ETH, with a pledge rate of about 30% and falling exchange balances driving supply constraints. The month of sharp rise in ETH history is usually driven by “Ethereum-specific catalyst+supply-demand imbalance”. For July 2026, Steven Ehrlich believes that the current market environment also has similar opportunities: 1. Institutional infrastructure is under construction, and ETHLabs (protocol development) and Ethereum Institutional were recently launched to push institutions into the on-chain ecosystem. Sharplink, BitMine, and Joe Lubin participated. 2. The Ethereum roadmap continues to be upgraded. Vitalik Buterin proposed the “Lean Ethereum” plan on July 4. The goal is to promote the simplification of the Ethereum architecture, increase speed, and enhance resistance to quantum security within the next 3 to 4 years. Its importance can be compared to The Merge. 3. Corporate capital continues to increase ETH, and digital asset reserve companies are still actively accumulating ETH. Sharplink currently holds 886,725 ETH, bought 10,000 more ETH last week, and stated that the goal is to increase the amount of ETH corresponding to each share. Steven Ehrlich said that Ethereum is entering a new stage of development, and institutional adoption, technology upgrades, and capital allocation may become important factors driving the ETH market.

43d ago

Ripple plans to introduce an institutional-level lending protocol in XRPL that allows tokenized assets to be used as collateral for financing

Comparatively, Ripple is promoting the addition of a layer of lending infrastructure to the XRP Ledger (XRPL), enabling institutions to use on-chain tokenized assets as collateral for financing, while the agreement automatically enforces loan terms, while credit evaluation and lending decisions are still made by off-chain institutions. According to reports, the proposal is called XRPL Lending Protocol (corresponding to XLS-65 and XLS-66 standards). Currently, it is still in the technical draft stage. It needs to be voted and approved by validators before it can be launched on the main network, but it has already been tested by developers on the test network. The design of the agreement divides the loan process into two parts: the chain is responsible for mechanisms such as fund pool management, interest calculation, repayment execution, and default processing; while borrower credit evaluation and loan clause settings are kept in the hands of traditional financial institutions to meet the compliance requirements of different jurisdictions. Ripple said that the mechanism mainly targets short-term liquidity needs of institutions. For example, in cross-border payment scenarios, temporary financing is carried out through stablecoins or collateral assets before settlement is received to improve capital efficiency. Analysts believe that while maintaining XRPL's open network attributes, the solution aims to introduce a “rule-fixed lending infrastructure” similar to traditional finance, but it still needs to face competition from mature on-chain lending agreements such as Aave, Compound, and Maple. This article is sponsored by GENG, Build Your Fortune on GENG (https://geng.one)

54d agoburnking

The 300 million valuation is a thing of the past, and the market is repricing

Author: Bibi News Original title: Reproduction of signals at the bottom of history? Messari, valued at 300 million, sold for 10 million. Messari used to be the crypto industry's closest data platform to Bloomberg. At its peak, it was valued at 300 million US dollars. Its founder, Ryan Selkis, was the first to reveal that Mt. Gox is insolvent. After becoming famous, he founded Messari with the goal of incorporating data, research, and disclosure from the crypto world into a professional platform. It covers more than 40,000 crypto assets, and the Mainnet conference held every year in New York is one of the industry's most important summits. In September 2022, hedge fund giant Brevan Howard's crypto division led its Series B financing, followed by Point72 and Coinbase Ventures, with a valuation of about $300 million. On June 12, 2026, Messari was bought by rival Blockworks at a price of around $10 million. This isn't the current state of a company. When the primary market valuation and the coins in your wallet are shrinking drastically, is the entire crypto industry's collective repricing? Crypto companies collectively shrink in July 2024. Messari founder Selkis resigned as CEO due to a series of controversial remarks, and co-founder Eric Turner took over. Turner also left in March 2026, and CTO Diran Li took over. At the same time, the company made large-scale layoffs, turned a U-turn to AI, and announced that it would become an AI-first company. But AI is not only the direction of transformation for Messari; it is also one of the reasons for its decline. The core products sold by Messari are research reports and data collation. In the past, an analyst spent a week writing an industry report, but now it can be completed in a few hours using AI tools. When research costs are close to zero, it is difficult for businesses selling research reports to receive any more money. This is not a cyclical difficulty; it is a structural threat. Eventually, Messari's data platform and API were merged into Blockworks, and the eight-year entrepreneurial story came to an end. But Messari is no exception. From 2025 to 2026, a quieter and deeper change is taking place: companies that don't issue coins and make money by selling products and services can't hold up. The data platform is closing its doors. DappRadar, which has been in operation for seven years, tracks more than 18,000 decentralized applications on 93 chains, uses 500,000 monthly users, and announced its shutdown in November 2025 due to “financial unsustainability”. The on-chain analysis platform Parsec has been in operation for five years and shut down in February 2026. CoinGecko is currently negotiating the overall sale and has hired investment bank Moelis as an advisor. The media is underselling or layoffs. CoinDesk, the benchmark for crypto media, was once rumored to sell for 300 million US dollars, cut 45% of the editorial team in August 2023, and was bought by Bullish for about 75 million dollars in November of the same year. Bankless, one of the most influential brands in crypto podcasts, has over 1,300 shows, a $35 million VC fund, and quietly cut most of its team in May of this year. Blockworks, which bought Messari, also shut down its entire news department in October 2025, putting all resources into the data business. Its founder put it bluntly: users are increasingly using data as their primary source of information rather than news. On-chain data company Dune laid off 25% of employees in May 2026. Since VC did not invest in 2017, more than 800 crypto investment funds have been set up around the world. Today, only about half are still in operation. In 2025, 63% of crypto hedge funds lost money. The new fund is also unable to raise money. Only 8 new crypto VC funds were set up in Q1 2026, the lowest since Q3 2020, and the amount raised was only 12% of the 2022 peak. From October 2025 to April 2026, monthly investment in crypto VC plummeted from $3.85 billion to $660 million, falling more than 80% in six months. Where did the money go? Went to AI. In 2025, VC financing in the AI sector was 192.7 billion US dollars, exceeding half of the world's total VC for the first time. A partner at Robot Ventures, a crypto fund founded by the founder of Compound, said a very direct statement: “AI has taken away oxygen, and talent and LP's attention have been taken away. Many people who should have started crypto businesses are now starting AI companies. “People are walking too. Multicoin Ca...

66d agoLuxurytracy

After US stocks and RWA were launched one after another, the coin industry began to compete for a real moat

Author: Danny Original title: After US stocks and RWA were launched on exchanges, efficiency is the core competitiveness of the coin industry. If you only look at the surface, it's easy to draw a conclusion: the coin industry is “embracing traditional finance,” and the coin industry assets will cool down?! Binance listed thousands of US stocks in stock, OKX, Bybit, and Bitget launched perpetual stocks, RWA tokens, and synthetic assets, and xStocks moved stocks to Solana. Seemingly, this is an expansion in the asset class — the coin community can finally buy $AAPL, $TSLA, $MSFT, $NVDA... but if you stay at this level of understanding, you haven't actually seen any real changes. The most important structural change in this round is not “more assets,” but rather that different assets are beginning to enter the same credit and margin system. When stocks, stablecoins, crypto assets, and RWA were placed in the same unified account, the competitive logic of the financial system changed: it was no longer “who owns assets,” but “who can use assets more efficiently.” The future belongs to young people. Compared to old people, young people don't have many assets. To achieve Go Big or Go Home, the prerequisite for achieving Go Big or Go Home is to have a place to use assets more efficiently. 1. The main line of financial history: never an asset, but efficiency Financial innovation is often misunderstood as “the birth of new assets,” but the more critical change in history has actually always been the improvement of efficiency. Stocks have not changed the world; securities financing has changed the world; bonds have not changed the world; the repurchase market has changed the world; mortgages have not changed the world; securitization has changed the world. The asset itself is a static inventory. What really determines the scale of finance is whether an asset can be reused (aka credit expansion): whether it can be collateralized, whether it can be re-collateralized, whether it can function simultaneously in multiple markets, and whether it can circulate at a faster speed. For young people, the essence of the financial system is not simply asset growth; it also requires an increase in the speed of capital turnover. It can be complicated, but it's faster. 2. DeFi Summer has already demonstrated this matter once, turning the time back to 2020. DeFi Summer, which many people remember, is liquidity mining, which is an APY that can easily run in the thousands; but that was just an appearance. The real innovation was the first time that collateral between n different systems began to circulate with each other. That path probably goes like this: deposit ETH → mint DAI → buy more ETH → deposit again → re-cast DAI → go back and forth. With every round, the exposure to ETH widens, and the original investment has not changed; the underlying asset of one dollar supports several dollars of credit. Aave, Compound, and later Curve and Convex just made this cycle smoother and more automatic. The protagonist of that round was $ETH. What it proved was never the yield of a farm, but that the same asset can be pledged and used over and over again. And this is the fundamental difference between crypto finance and traditional finance — composability. 3. The core advantage of encryption: It's not an asset, but composability. Many people understand encryption as a “new asset class,” but the real difference in cryptography is not in assets, but in structure — traditional finance is an account isolation system, while encryption is a state sharing system. The same ETH can play multiple roles on the chain at the same time: it is both a spot asset, collateral, a loan asset, a derivative security deposit, or the underlying asset of a yield strategy. The same asset is used over and over; in traditional financial systems, this kind of reuse is highly limited. (Remember the story of Bybit's unified account system overtaking a corner?!) This is the core power of cryptography — turning assets into credit components that can be infinitely restructured. 4. The true meaning of RWA on CEX: It is not an asset chain, but an efficiency boundary extension. Currently, the mainstream understanding of RWA is: stock on chain, bond on chain, and real estate on chain. But this is just a superficial narrative; the real question is — what system do these assets run on after entering the chain? If it's just a “different trading interface,” the meaning is limited. But if you enter a unified margin system: 24-hour trading, real-time settlement, multi-asset collateral, and unified accounts across markets, then the meaning of assets changes. The assets themselves have not changed, but the way they are used has qualitatively changed: the same asset begins to serve multiple systems and participate in multiple cycles at the same time. Efficiency is beginning to become a core variable, and...

79d agoLuxurytracy

It's Not Destruction, It's Reinventing: Hacking and Regulation Are Pushing DeFi to Realism

Author: Gu Yu, ChainCatcher Original title: Are Hacking and Regulation Ruining DeFi? In April 2026, a series of security disasters once again brought DeFi to the forefront of public opinion. The Kelp DAO and Drift Protocol attacks collectively caused losses of more than US$575 million. The total locked value (TVL) of DeFi plummeted from about US$172 billion to US$148 billion, and the TVL of the lending sector alone collapsed from US$53 billion to US$40 billion. In recent days, Manuel Aráoz, co-founder of the well-known security audit firm OpenZeppelin, said bluntly on the X platform: “I think all DeFi is unsafe anymore.” He even said that he has begun privately advising his family and friends to clear all DeFi positions, including Aave, MakerDAO, and Compound, which are known as “low-risk blue chip” agreements. Although this judgment is particularly harsh, it is worth pondering. After all, OpenZeppelin has long been one of the most important security infrastructure builders in the DeFi world, and its smart contract standards and security tools have evolved almost throughout the industry. If even those most familiar with smart contract security systems are beginning to question the risks of DeFi and withdraw decisively, then this certainly means that some deeper problem is surfacing. Whenever DeFi has experienced setbacks over the past few years, people have been able to quickly find a specific reason. When the market is sluggish, people blame the macro environment; when hacking occurs, people think it is due to technical flaws; when regulators act, people also attribute the problem to policy pressure. However, if you lengthen the time dimension, people will discover an increasingly clear fact: the plight of DeFi today is not caused by an attack, a regulatory policy, or a failed project, but rather the two core sets of logic that it was originally founded on are being challenged at the same time. A set of logic comes from the world of technology: code can replace trust. Another set of logic comes from the institutional world, that is, an open network can bypass the constraints of traditional financial systems. However, hacking and regulation have hit these two pillars separately. 1. The deep evolution of the DeFi security crisis In the past ten years, the core paradox in the field of DeFi security has not changed. Web3 security researchers have already identified this fatal asymmetry: defenders must close every possible gap that can be exploited, and attackers only need to succeed in one step. On the face of it, the attack methods are nothing more than cliché routines such as cross-chain bridge exploits, multi-signature privilege hijacking, and oracle manipulation. But the Kelp DAO and Drift Protocol incidents revealed an even harsher trend: the most fatal bugs are often not in the smart contract code. On April 18, the Ethereum liquidity heavy staking protocol Kelp DAO was attacked. The attackers used the DVN (Decentralized Verification Network) configuration vulnerability of the LayerZero cross-chain bridge, falsified cross-chain messages, and removed 116,500 rSetH from the cross-chain bridge within a few hours, which was about US$293 million at the price at the time. The nature of this disaster was a misconfiguration, not a code flaw. Kelp DAO chose “1-of-1” for LayerZero's cross-chain verification network — only one DVN node is required to confirm, and cross-chain messages are considered legitimate. When the attackers attacked the two RPC nodes that provided verification data and launched a DDoS attack, the entire bridging system was fictional. On April 1, Drift Protocol, one of the largest perpetual contract DEXs in the Solana ecosystem, was attacked and lost US$285 million, making it the biggest single DeFi attack incident so far in 2026, and the second largest hacking case in Solana's history. It's also not a smart contract bug. The attackers attacked at least two of the three signers of the multi-signature wallet through social engineering, using Solana's durable nonce feature to force them to pre-sign malicious transactions. Once the attackers obtained administrator rights, they completed the theft of funds in less than 12 minutes. The root cause of the attack is a complete failure of operational security (OpSec): improper configuration of multi-signature wallets, blind spots in key management, and flawed social engineering defenses. These two events revealed the deep evolution of the DeFi security crisis: the breakthrough of attacks is moving from traditional smart contract code bugs to the configuration layer and the humanity/OpSec layer...

85d agoburnking#DeFi #custodial #hacks