Uniswap (UNI)

Why are some protocols targeted and others aren’t?

Uniswap. Curve. Aave. Liquity…

None of them are attractive targets for this kind of attacks, because compromising their signers can’t drain the protocol.

Drift’s multisig could introduce new collateral.

So the 6month plan was to:

Compromise the signers → drain everything.

Multisigs are fine for operational tasks, but they’re not fine when they control collateral introduction or core protocol upgrades.

You can’t train your team to avoid a 6-month intelligence operation with $1M in real deposits and in-person meetings.

But you can architect your protocol so it doesn’t matter if they succeed.

Thanks for the transparency @DriftProtocol and wishing you all the best for the upcoming investigations 🤝

Let’s make DeFi safer together.
- xerberus

What's happening in DeFi is identical to what was happening in the Soviet Union after World War II.

Over 20 projects have shut down or wound down since the start of the year, including @AngleProtocol, @tallyxyz, @PolynomialFi, @parsec_finance, @Dmailofficial, etc.

It's the market pruning projects that relied on constant token emissions, low organic usage, or outdated models. Tech was often fine; liquidity and adoption weren't.

This purge is essential. What comes after is potential prosperity.

The Soviet Union never got genuine, sustained prosperity. Reconstruction (1946-1950, 1951-1955) boosted official stats temporarily, but inefficiencies compounded, leading to stagnation.

DeFi has better odds because of open competition, forkability, and real feedback loops. What are signs of getting better, though?

- Shift to real yield and sustainability (less reliance on inflationary APYs; more focus on revenue, fee-sharing models (e.g., @Uniswap fee activation discussions), and organic use)
- RWAs & institutions