the $50M AAVE wallet has a name now. and it makes the story worse.
I'll be straight: the laundering theory is suboptimal at best. KYC'd Binance wallet, and routing 80% of the value to entities that are hard to coordinate with and impossible to guarantee - risky way to wash money.
but then Lookonchain dropped this: 13 wallets traced back to Garrett Jin - former CEO of BitForex, the exchange that faked volumes, had a $57M private key "leak," got a fraud warning from Hong Kong SFC, and shut down. he sold 261K ETH ($543M) and 11.3K BTC ($761M) mid-February. the dates match exactly when these wallets withdrew stablecoins from Binance. one wallet shares the same Binance deposit address as Jin.
so the "poor guy fat-fingered it" narrative is now: a guy who ran an exchange that collapsed under fraud allegations, who moved $1.3B in crypto weeks earlier, opened Aave on his phone, saw a 99% loss warning, and tapped confirm.
CoW's routing function that should catch insane quotes was hard-disabled. one builder pocketed ~$34M in a single block. and we still don't know why someone with this background would do a $50M collateral swap through a mobile UI with zero slippage protection.
not claiming to know what this is. but it's not a fat finger.
After today's unfavourable $50M swap on our interface, there's a lot of confusion around slippage I'd like to clarify:
Slippage is the tolerance buffer on a market order: how much the final fill price can deviate from the quoted price due to market movement between signing and execution. On the Aave interface, suggested slippage is algorithmically calculated from asset pair volatility and order size.
Since we offer both market orders (with adjustable slippage) and limit orders, our slippage and fee estimates are tuned for execution time. Users can always tighten it (or set limit amounts) and will typically get a surplus back thanks to @CoWSwap's auction mechanism.
In this case, the user sent a market order with the suggested 1.21% slippage. But the core issue wasn't slippage, it was just the accepted quote with 99% price impact:
As you can confirm it yourself on the CoW explorer, the order includes a quote field showing the original rate (50M USDT -> <140 AAVE) presented to the user before fees and slippage. It was already a very bad rate.
All the interactions were also verified via internal analytics, and the user even received a 0.7% surplus, confirming the swap mechanics worked exactly as intended. Thanks to our open-source nature, anyone can reproduce this.
So, the price impact warning was displayed. The checkbox was checked, sadly.
While we're working on stronger guardrails for all our users, we'll always believe in permissionless DeFi.
Everyone focused on why did the AAVE buyer have $50m on his phone
No one asking why someone w/ $500m in mobile hot wallets was trying to buy 3% of the entire AAVE supply in a single public txn
@brycent Same people calling for safe guards would be getting out the pitch forks if a trade was stopped due to centralized limits during a terra style event. Dude trading 50 mil in a single order on a phone and your answer is we need a nanny state
Are @LayerZero_Core and @StargateFinance separate enough to justify an acquisition?
Sharing some concerns that I have around the situation & really think that the community at large should know about this.