Big news for Blue Team nerds
That nerd who released those Microsoft 0days has created two new repos on GitHub with spooky sounding names indicating they will be releasing two new Windows 0days.
Very cool
https://t.co/VaWFtW5lFi
@immunefi@FolksFinance@Hcrlen@bshyuunn So crazy that you only use ZKPassport for your KYC process. People in the US have drivers licenses. ZKPassport does not support (have the functional ability to support) drivers licenses. Do better
@griffgreen Seems like a centralized override mechanism. Are we supposed to assume that code is law does not apply to Arbitrum?
Is disregarding the entire Ethereum ethos a trade off for L2 benefits?
A researcher spent three weeks reading a protocol's code. Found a critical vulnerability that could drain $40 million in user funds. Wrote a detailed report. Submitted it through the official bug bounty channel.
The response came eleven days later: "We were already aware of this issue and have been working on a fix internally. As this was a known issue, it does not qualify for a bounty under our program terms."
The protocol shipped the fix two weeks after that. The researcher received nothing.
I want to tell you why this specific response is the most commonly used and least challenged form of dishonesty in the Web3 security ecosystem — and exactly why it works.
The claim "we were already aware" is unfalsifiable. There is no public registry of what issues a team was aware of before a submission arrived. There is no timestamp system for internal security tickets that a researcher can verify. There is no mediation process requiring the team to provide evidence of prior awareness. The researcher cannot prove the negative. The team knows this.
The economics make it worse. A $75,000 bounty on a $40 million protocol represents real money. The reputational cost of one disputed finding is manageable. The researcher has no platform with sufficient reach to make the dispute visible. The community will not investigate. The team moves on.
Some teams genuinely do discover issues internally before external reports arrive. This happens and the timing is real. But when the same response pattern appears across multiple researchers reporting to multiple programs — and it does, with enough consistency that researchers have started documenting it publicly — the pattern becomes impossible to dismiss as coincidence.
What protects researchers: timestamp everything before you submit. Screenshot your proof of concept. Document when you first discovered the issue. Use platforms with mediation processes. Publish a disclosure timeline you communicate to the team before submitting, so they know there is a clock running.
What would fix this structurally: an industry standard requiring teams to timestamp internal security issues in a way that creates an auditable record prior to accepting external submissions. Not perfect. Significantly better than the current system where the team's word is the only evidence.
What actually fixes it: protocols that pay because they understand the researcher's rational alternative, not because they feel obligated.
The researcher in this story made a financially irrational choice to report responsibly. They received nothing for it. The protocol is still running. The user funds that the researcher protected are still in the protocol. Those users will never know.
This is the Web3 security ecosystem as it currently exists. Most of the people who know it behave this way have decided it is not worth saying publicly.
💳 You can now earn USDGLO by spending dollars with your BCard.
BCard helps to fund every community — by earning crypto rewards when spending money in the real world.
@getbcard + USDGLO = 🌈 ☀️
How it works ↓↓↓