@xKeywordx unlikely. the energy should be the same for prior blackhats who were offered a 10% bounty for stealing funds.
it's either we negotiate w/ terrorists or we don't.
but to choose the former then be selective about which terrorists can and can't receive a bounty is unsustainable
the point that is consistently being overlooked isn't that whitehats/auditors align w/ the actions of the hacker.
what was done was unethical.
however, for over a year, we've been highlighting this would occur/be inevitable.
anyone shocked just wasn't paying attention
What actually happened is that a black hat has used the exploit + blackmail technique to coerce the protocol into giving away $47M
When you exploit and blackmail you are negotiating over user funds, when you are submitting a bug bounty you are to be compensated from the protocol treasury.
The 2 are incomparable in size and thus the outcomes are very different.
We have to stop calling these guys white hats even if the protocol had a poor bug bounty policy.
Auditors often think their reputation is built on critical findings. That's true, but it's not the only thing.
It's also built by being reliable, communicating well, helping teammates, and consistently delivering quality work.
People remember who they want to work with again.
@windhustler this is part of the reason this job market is especially hard for some people.
they don't know how to build something for themselves to put their best foot fwd