![sandmanarc's tweet photo. Why is Everyone Quiet about the Cross-Chain Honey Pots?
$10B+ at risk?
This post will cover:
1. DVNs on @LayerZero_Fndn
2. ISMs on @hyperlane
3. OFTs & Warp Assets
4. Non-dormant addresses on @ether_fi and @renzoai multisigs
"Decentralised Verifier Network" aka DVNs by LayerZero
LayerZero Labs DVN: 2/3 multisig
Nethermind DVN: 1/1 multisig
Stargate DVN: 1/1
Google Cloud DVN: 2/3
Horizen DVN: 2/2
Source: You gotta go to Etherscan and call the signerSize and quorum functions. Here are the contracts: Link [1] (in the reply)
Note: There is no guarantee that these multisigs are actually distributed and not maintained by a single person like in the case of Multichain.
The name "DVN" itself is misleading. It certainly mislead me into trusting them more. A DVN is a modular validator entity inside LayerZero. That means, if you choose a single DVN set-up, your cross chain messages will be solely validated by this DVN. You can choose multiple DVNs or m out n DVNs to secure your setup.
Most protocols (clients using LZ) have 2 DVN setups at max. I had to create this Dune dashboard myself to look into what's happening on-chain.
For instance, Stargate has 2 DVNs. Stargate DVN and Nethermind DVN. Both are 1/1 multisigs. Securing, checks notes, $442.84m.
Dune is doing a terrible job here, here's how the distribution of various configurations looks like. Look at the numbers that start tapering off as we go down the list. Dashboard link [2].
So, most protocols (clients using LZ) simply trust this one entity, LayerZero Labs, a 2/3 multisig. It's baffling to me that we're all fine with this and nobody is talking about it. We gotta push these teams towards more secure systems, rather push protocols that are using LayerZero to demand for more security.
Let's look at Hyperlane, LayerZero's biggest competitor at the moment.
First of all, thank God they call their default setup "Multisig ISM", ISM = "Interchain Security Module". They are at least honest about it. It is a multisig. Period.
Hyperlane has setup their default ISM to be a distributed set of validators with different quorums for different chains. Each of these validators in this multisig setups are different entities, like various DVNs on LayerZero.
Here's how their default setup looks like:
Arbitrum: 3/5 multisig
Base: 2/5
Blast: 2/3
BNB: 2/4
Ethereum: 3/7
Optimism: 2/5
(source: Link [3], note: they said this post prompted them to up their numbers, so this may have been updated)
It is not very far off from the LayerZero DVN setups. But atleast you can be sure that 3-7 of these entites are actively validating in the system. It also seems better than using a single LayerZero Labs DVN setup. By the way, in a m/n multisig setup, if n is >> m, you are compromised if ANY of the m keys are compromised. In their BNB setup, 2/4, if any of the 2 validators out of 4 are compromised, you are compromised.
If you compare these with Wormhole's default 13/19 setup, Wormhole looks a lot better. But I've heard it is upgradable. Do they need 13/19 signers to upgrade? I don't know.
There are two main arguments by the GMPs (General Messaging Protocols, LZ & HL in this case) defending the lack of security of individual setups at the moment.
1. You can make it as secure as you want by adding as many DVNs/ISMs as possible. This is a marketplace and the market isn't choosing their security right.
2. You can upgrade to a more secure setup when they are available.
Choosing your own security
In fact, I'm writing about this after I had to choose my own setup for my protocol built on LayerZero. I had no idea what to choose. LayerZero does not provide any information on the current usage distribution of DVNs, nor do they advice you on a secure setup as they want to be agnostic. Layerzeroscan only provides data on the distribution of messages by different protocols using LZ. But that is not useful to me at all. They don't even tell us what DVNs these protocols are using. That's why I built my own Dune dashboard.
Here are the most used DVNs across major EVM chains:
Outside of the top 6 DVNs I mentioned at the top of this post, none of the DVNs are getting any volume. Why would a protocol choose to even trust DVNs other than the active ones? What guarantee is there that they are active and will be active in the future? What if you brick your system by choosing a dying DVN? If a DVN is not getting any volume, they would rather turn off their nodes as it costs to run a DVN.
It's the same with complex DVNs or ISMs. If there is an ISM that is not being used, that means, it is not battle tested. If it is not securing any value, why would you trust it to secure your protocol? So the argument that these GMPs are agnostic marketplaces does not hold true at all. Someone has to help the crypto protocols choose the right setups.
It is as if Amazon offered a default product for all of your searches and gave you a list of other options without product availability, reviews or even a description.
In my experience, Hyperlane is more eager to engage their clients with education than LayerZero.
It should be easier for more DVNs to start competing in the GMP marketplaces. In reality, there is no way for them to market themselves to the protocols using Hyperlane/LayerZero outside of shouting into the void on Twitter. Apparently the teams(LZ said so) are currently working on dashboards to showcase more data about individual DVNs/ISMs. Maybe this post pushed them to do so.
The second main argument is that, protocols should use this trusted setup now, so that they can upgrade to a ZK bridge or a restaked security setup later down the line.
The Upgradability of Your Setup
First of all, I want to highlight that this is so far from the crypto ethos that got me into this space. Mutability, smh. Let's compare an ERC20 with an omnichain token.
An ERC20
1. Has a fixed supply that nobody can change (most of em)
2. Exists on a blockchain where nobody, including the team itself, can mint extra ERC20s
An OFT or A Warp Asset
1. Has a fixed supply in theory, but an unlimited number of tokens can be minted if the interop setup is compromised, unless there is a rate limit.
2. Has its interop setup managed by a multisig controlled by the token issuer (protocol). This multisig can change the rate limit as well (lol?).
3. Exists on multiple blockchains where if one of the chains is malicious, they might be able to mint as many tokens as possible, unless there is a rate limit, which can be changed.
Let's look at team multisigs for a second. At least they are dormant addresses locked up in a basement, right? Right?
@ether_fi is a protocol with $5.5B+ in TVL.
Here is the multisig (Link[4]) securing their weETH OFT. 5 out of these 6 wallets have been active in the last 2 months. That means a higher likelihood of getting their private keys stolen.. For context, Ronin ($600m) and Harmony Bridge ($100m) hacks were due to comprises of multisigs.
@renzoai is a protocol with $1.5B in TVL. And their ezETH is an xERC20. It is also secured by a 3/5 (multisig Link [5]). All 5 of these addresses have been active recently. And they all seem to be kinda interlinked. But I am not an expert on-chain sleuth to comment on that though.
Will Ethena's USDe ever depeg? Perhaps not due to their stablecoin design, but rather because of their interop setup (LayerZero Labs DVN + Horizen DVN, basically a 4/5). At least 7 of their 9 multisig addresses are dormant.
So, can we say a total of around $10B+ is at risk here?
I am not blaming these GMPs. They are simply selling a setup. I am pushing the community to demand enough security from the protocols that are using these setups. Did we all forget that the bridge hacks have accounted for >50% of all funds we have lost? Now we are offering billions more on a platter to the hackers around the world. Kim Jong-Un is probably rubbing his hands right now.
Native Bridges, Ignored, And Left for Dead
It is easy to point out problems than to offer solutions. What is the best security for cross-chain messaging/tokens right now then? I would suggest studying wstETH by Lido. It uses native bridges to bridge and also to control the upgradable token setups on L2s. The upgradability is controlled by the Lido DAO on L1. Except the upgradability aspect of this, I have no issues with this setup. There is no way an unlimited amount of wstETH can be minted in this case.
There will be solutions based on restaking in the future, hopefully they will offer a much better security than what we have today.
Closing Thoughts
I used to think very highly of LayerZero as a protocol. A protocol that is marketed https://t.co/jxO3ChhU2J as a peer next to Bitcoin and Ethereum. Bitcoin, Ethereum, LayerZero. But I do not feel strongly about it anymore. I don't think it's even close. Bitcoiners chose the smaller blocks chain, Ethereans still care about the solo stakers, but the protocols using LayerZero are fine with one or two DVN setups.
This is not a post targeted towards any of the GMPs/protocols mentioned here. I wanted to voice out my concern because I hold a lot more ETH than I hold ZRO (I do hold some ZRO, sandmanarc.eth). I have also integrated LayerZero into the protocol I am currently building. Although I am having second thoughts about it now.
Let's demand better standards from our industry. - A humble community member, Sand](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GU--WTPa4AEZH1Q.jpg)
![sandmanarc's tweet photo. Why is Everyone Quiet about the Cross-Chain Honey Pots?
$10B+ at risk?
This post will cover:
1. DVNs on @LayerZero_Fndn
2. ISMs on @hyperlane
3. OFTs & Warp Assets
4. Non-dormant addresses on @ether_fi and @renzoai multisigs
"Decentralised Verifier Network" aka DVNs by LayerZero
LayerZero Labs DVN: 2/3 multisig
Nethermind DVN: 1/1 multisig
Stargate DVN: 1/1
Google Cloud DVN: 2/3
Horizen DVN: 2/2
Source: You gotta go to Etherscan and call the signerSize and quorum functions. Here are the contracts: Link [1] (in the reply)
Note: There is no guarantee that these multisigs are actually distributed and not maintained by a single person like in the case of Multichain.
The name "DVN" itself is misleading. It certainly mislead me into trusting them more. A DVN is a modular validator entity inside LayerZero. That means, if you choose a single DVN set-up, your cross chain messages will be solely validated by this DVN. You can choose multiple DVNs or m out n DVNs to secure your setup.
Most protocols (clients using LZ) have 2 DVN setups at max. I had to create this Dune dashboard myself to look into what's happening on-chain.
For instance, Stargate has 2 DVNs. Stargate DVN and Nethermind DVN. Both are 1/1 multisigs. Securing, checks notes, $442.84m.
Dune is doing a terrible job here, here's how the distribution of various configurations looks like. Look at the numbers that start tapering off as we go down the list. Dashboard link [2].
So, most protocols (clients using LZ) simply trust this one entity, LayerZero Labs, a 2/3 multisig. It's baffling to me that we're all fine with this and nobody is talking about it. We gotta push these teams towards more secure systems, rather push protocols that are using LayerZero to demand for more security.
Let's look at Hyperlane, LayerZero's biggest competitor at the moment.
First of all, thank God they call their default setup "Multisig ISM", ISM = "Interchain Security Module". They are at least honest about it. It is a multisig. Period.
Hyperlane has setup their default ISM to be a distributed set of validators with different quorums for different chains. Each of these validators in this multisig setups are different entities, like various DVNs on LayerZero.
Here's how their default setup looks like:
Arbitrum: 3/5 multisig
Base: 2/5
Blast: 2/3
BNB: 2/4
Ethereum: 3/7
Optimism: 2/5
(source: Link [3], note: they said this post prompted them to up their numbers, so this may have been updated)
It is not very far off from the LayerZero DVN setups. But atleast you can be sure that 3-7 of these entites are actively validating in the system. It also seems better than using a single LayerZero Labs DVN setup. By the way, in a m/n multisig setup, if n is >> m, you are compromised if ANY of the m keys are compromised. In their BNB setup, 2/4, if any of the 2 validators out of 4 are compromised, you are compromised.
If you compare these with Wormhole's default 13/19 setup, Wormhole looks a lot better. But I've heard it is upgradable. Do they need 13/19 signers to upgrade? I don't know.
There are two main arguments by the GMPs (General Messaging Protocols, LZ & HL in this case) defending the lack of security of individual setups at the moment.
1. You can make it as secure as you want by adding as many DVNs/ISMs as possible. This is a marketplace and the market isn't choosing their security right.
2. You can upgrade to a more secure setup when they are available.
Choosing your own security
In fact, I'm writing about this after I had to choose my own setup for my protocol built on LayerZero. I had no idea what to choose. LayerZero does not provide any information on the current usage distribution of DVNs, nor do they advice you on a secure setup as they want to be agnostic. Layerzeroscan only provides data on the distribution of messages by different protocols using LZ. But that is not useful to me at all. They don't even tell us what DVNs these protocols are using. That's why I built my own Dune dashboard.
Here are the most used DVNs across major EVM chains:
Outside of the top 6 DVNs I mentioned at the top of this post, none of the DVNs are getting any volume. Why would a protocol choose to even trust DVNs other than the active ones? What guarantee is there that they are active and will be active in the future? What if you brick your system by choosing a dying DVN? If a DVN is not getting any volume, they would rather turn off their nodes as it costs to run a DVN.
It's the same with complex DVNs or ISMs. If there is an ISM that is not being used, that means, it is not battle tested. If it is not securing any value, why would you trust it to secure your protocol? So the argument that these GMPs are agnostic marketplaces does not hold true at all. Someone has to help the crypto protocols choose the right setups.
It is as if Amazon offered a default product for all of your searches and gave you a list of other options without product availability, reviews or even a description.
In my experience, Hyperlane is more eager to engage their clients with education than LayerZero.
It should be easier for more DVNs to start competing in the GMP marketplaces. In reality, there is no way for them to market themselves to the protocols using Hyperlane/LayerZero outside of shouting into the void on Twitter. Apparently the teams(LZ said so) are currently working on dashboards to showcase more data about individual DVNs/ISMs. Maybe this post pushed them to do so.
The second main argument is that, protocols should use this trusted setup now, so that they can upgrade to a ZK bridge or a restaked security setup later down the line.
The Upgradability of Your Setup
First of all, I want to highlight that this is so far from the crypto ethos that got me into this space. Mutability, smh. Let's compare an ERC20 with an omnichain token.
An ERC20
1. Has a fixed supply that nobody can change (most of em)
2. Exists on a blockchain where nobody, including the team itself, can mint extra ERC20s
An OFT or A Warp Asset
1. Has a fixed supply in theory, but an unlimited number of tokens can be minted if the interop setup is compromised, unless there is a rate limit.
2. Has its interop setup managed by a multisig controlled by the token issuer (protocol). This multisig can change the rate limit as well (lol?).
3. Exists on multiple blockchains where if one of the chains is malicious, they might be able to mint as many tokens as possible, unless there is a rate limit, which can be changed.
Let's look at team multisigs for a second. At least they are dormant addresses locked up in a basement, right? Right?
@ether_fi is a protocol with $5.5B+ in TVL.
Here is the multisig (Link[4]) securing their weETH OFT. 5 out of these 6 wallets have been active in the last 2 months. That means a higher likelihood of getting their private keys stolen.. For context, Ronin ($600m) and Harmony Bridge ($100m) hacks were due to comprises of multisigs.
@renzoai is a protocol with $1.5B in TVL. And their ezETH is an xERC20. It is also secured by a 3/5 (multisig Link [5]). All 5 of these addresses have been active recently. And they all seem to be kinda interlinked. But I am not an expert on-chain sleuth to comment on that though.
Will Ethena's USDe ever depeg? Perhaps not due to their stablecoin design, but rather because of their interop setup (LayerZero Labs DVN + Horizen DVN, basically a 4/5). At least 7 of their 9 multisig addresses are dormant.
So, can we say a total of around $10B+ is at risk here?
I am not blaming these GMPs. They are simply selling a setup. I am pushing the community to demand enough security from the protocols that are using these setups. Did we all forget that the bridge hacks have accounted for >50% of all funds we have lost? Now we are offering billions more on a platter to the hackers around the world. Kim Jong-Un is probably rubbing his hands right now.
Native Bridges, Ignored, And Left for Dead
It is easy to point out problems than to offer solutions. What is the best security for cross-chain messaging/tokens right now then? I would suggest studying wstETH by Lido. It uses native bridges to bridge and also to control the upgradable token setups on L2s. The upgradability is controlled by the Lido DAO on L1. Except the upgradability aspect of this, I have no issues with this setup. There is no way an unlimited amount of wstETH can be minted in this case.
There will be solutions based on restaking in the future, hopefully they will offer a much better security than what we have today.
Closing Thoughts
I used to think very highly of LayerZero as a protocol. A protocol that is marketed https://t.co/jxO3ChhU2J as a peer next to Bitcoin and Ethereum. Bitcoin, Ethereum, LayerZero. But I do not feel strongly about it anymore. I don't think it's even close. Bitcoiners chose the smaller blocks chain, Ethereans still care about the solo stakers, but the protocols using LayerZero are fine with one or two DVN setups.
This is not a post targeted towards any of the GMPs/protocols mentioned here. I wanted to voice out my concern because I hold a lot more ETH than I hold ZRO (I do hold some ZRO, sandmanarc.eth). I have also integrated LayerZero into the protocol I am currently building. Although I am having second thoughts about it now.
Let's demand better standards from our industry. - A humble community member, Sand](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GU-9dKna4AEeHbN.jpg)
![sandmanarc's tweet photo. Why is Everyone Quiet about the Cross-Chain Honey Pots?
$10B+ at risk?
This post will cover:
1. DVNs on @LayerZero_Fndn
2. ISMs on @hyperlane
3. OFTs & Warp Assets
4. Non-dormant addresses on @ether_fi and @renzoai multisigs
"Decentralised Verifier Network" aka DVNs by LayerZero
LayerZero Labs DVN: 2/3 multisig
Nethermind DVN: 1/1 multisig
Stargate DVN: 1/1
Google Cloud DVN: 2/3
Horizen DVN: 2/2
Source: You gotta go to Etherscan and call the signerSize and quorum functions. Here are the contracts: Link [1] (in the reply)
Note: There is no guarantee that these multisigs are actually distributed and not maintained by a single person like in the case of Multichain.
The name "DVN" itself is misleading. It certainly mislead me into trusting them more. A DVN is a modular validator entity inside LayerZero. That means, if you choose a single DVN set-up, your cross chain messages will be solely validated by this DVN. You can choose multiple DVNs or m out n DVNs to secure your setup.
Most protocols (clients using LZ) have 2 DVN setups at max. I had to create this Dune dashboard myself to look into what's happening on-chain.
For instance, Stargate has 2 DVNs. Stargate DVN and Nethermind DVN. Both are 1/1 multisigs. Securing, checks notes, $442.84m.
Dune is doing a terrible job here, here's how the distribution of various configurations looks like. Look at the numbers that start tapering off as we go down the list. Dashboard link [2].
So, most protocols (clients using LZ) simply trust this one entity, LayerZero Labs, a 2/3 multisig. It's baffling to me that we're all fine with this and nobody is talking about it. We gotta push these teams towards more secure systems, rather push protocols that are using LayerZero to demand for more security.
Let's look at Hyperlane, LayerZero's biggest competitor at the moment.
First of all, thank God they call their default setup "Multisig ISM", ISM = "Interchain Security Module". They are at least honest about it. It is a multisig. Period.
Hyperlane has setup their default ISM to be a distributed set of validators with different quorums for different chains. Each of these validators in this multisig setups are different entities, like various DVNs on LayerZero.
Here's how their default setup looks like:
Arbitrum: 3/5 multisig
Base: 2/5
Blast: 2/3
BNB: 2/4
Ethereum: 3/7
Optimism: 2/5
(source: Link [3], note: they said this post prompted them to up their numbers, so this may have been updated)
It is not very far off from the LayerZero DVN setups. But atleast you can be sure that 3-7 of these entites are actively validating in the system. It also seems better than using a single LayerZero Labs DVN setup. By the way, in a m/n multisig setup, if n is >> m, you are compromised if ANY of the m keys are compromised. In their BNB setup, 2/4, if any of the 2 validators out of 4 are compromised, you are compromised.
If you compare these with Wormhole's default 13/19 setup, Wormhole looks a lot better. But I've heard it is upgradable. Do they need 13/19 signers to upgrade? I don't know.
There are two main arguments by the GMPs (General Messaging Protocols, LZ & HL in this case) defending the lack of security of individual setups at the moment.
1. You can make it as secure as you want by adding as many DVNs/ISMs as possible. This is a marketplace and the market isn't choosing their security right.
2. You can upgrade to a more secure setup when they are available.
Choosing your own security
In fact, I'm writing about this after I had to choose my own setup for my protocol built on LayerZero. I had no idea what to choose. LayerZero does not provide any information on the current usage distribution of DVNs, nor do they advice you on a secure setup as they want to be agnostic. Layerzeroscan only provides data on the distribution of messages by different protocols using LZ. But that is not useful to me at all. They don't even tell us what DVNs these protocols are using. That's why I built my own Dune dashboard.
Here are the most used DVNs across major EVM chains:
Outside of the top 6 DVNs I mentioned at the top of this post, none of the DVNs are getting any volume. Why would a protocol choose to even trust DVNs other than the active ones? What guarantee is there that they are active and will be active in the future? What if you brick your system by choosing a dying DVN? If a DVN is not getting any volume, they would rather turn off their nodes as it costs to run a DVN.
It's the same with complex DVNs or ISMs. If there is an ISM that is not being used, that means, it is not battle tested. If it is not securing any value, why would you trust it to secure your protocol? So the argument that these GMPs are agnostic marketplaces does not hold true at all. Someone has to help the crypto protocols choose the right setups.
It is as if Amazon offered a default product for all of your searches and gave you a list of other options without product availability, reviews or even a description.
In my experience, Hyperlane is more eager to engage their clients with education than LayerZero.
It should be easier for more DVNs to start competing in the GMP marketplaces. In reality, there is no way for them to market themselves to the protocols using Hyperlane/LayerZero outside of shouting into the void on Twitter. Apparently the teams(LZ said so) are currently working on dashboards to showcase more data about individual DVNs/ISMs. Maybe this post pushed them to do so.
The second main argument is that, protocols should use this trusted setup now, so that they can upgrade to a ZK bridge or a restaked security setup later down the line.
The Upgradability of Your Setup
First of all, I want to highlight that this is so far from the crypto ethos that got me into this space. Mutability, smh. Let's compare an ERC20 with an omnichain token.
An ERC20
1. Has a fixed supply that nobody can change (most of em)
2. Exists on a blockchain where nobody, including the team itself, can mint extra ERC20s
An OFT or A Warp Asset
1. Has a fixed supply in theory, but an unlimited number of tokens can be minted if the interop setup is compromised, unless there is a rate limit.
2. Has its interop setup managed by a multisig controlled by the token issuer (protocol). This multisig can change the rate limit as well (lol?).
3. Exists on multiple blockchains where if one of the chains is malicious, they might be able to mint as many tokens as possible, unless there is a rate limit, which can be changed.
Let's look at team multisigs for a second. At least they are dormant addresses locked up in a basement, right? Right?
@ether_fi is a protocol with $5.5B+ in TVL.
Here is the multisig (Link[4]) securing their weETH OFT. 5 out of these 6 wallets have been active in the last 2 months. That means a higher likelihood of getting their private keys stolen.. For context, Ronin ($600m) and Harmony Bridge ($100m) hacks were due to comprises of multisigs.
@renzoai is a protocol with $1.5B in TVL. And their ezETH is an xERC20. It is also secured by a 3/5 (multisig Link [5]). All 5 of these addresses have been active recently. And they all seem to be kinda interlinked. But I am not an expert on-chain sleuth to comment on that though.
Will Ethena's USDe ever depeg? Perhaps not due to their stablecoin design, but rather because of their interop setup (LayerZero Labs DVN + Horizen DVN, basically a 4/5). At least 7 of their 9 multisig addresses are dormant.
So, can we say a total of around $10B+ is at risk here?
I am not blaming these GMPs. They are simply selling a setup. I am pushing the community to demand enough security from the protocols that are using these setups. Did we all forget that the bridge hacks have accounted for >50% of all funds we have lost? Now we are offering billions more on a platter to the hackers around the world. Kim Jong-Un is probably rubbing his hands right now.
Native Bridges, Ignored, And Left for Dead
It is easy to point out problems than to offer solutions. What is the best security for cross-chain messaging/tokens right now then? I would suggest studying wstETH by Lido. It uses native bridges to bridge and also to control the upgradable token setups on L2s. The upgradability is controlled by the Lido DAO on L1. Except the upgradability aspect of this, I have no issues with this setup. There is no way an unlimited amount of wstETH can be minted in this case.
There will be solutions based on restaking in the future, hopefully they will offer a much better security than what we have today.
Closing Thoughts
I used to think very highly of LayerZero as a protocol. A protocol that is marketed https://t.co/jxO3ChhU2J as a peer next to Bitcoin and Ethereum. Bitcoin, Ethereum, LayerZero. But I do not feel strongly about it anymore. I don't think it's even close. Bitcoiners chose the smaller blocks chain, Ethereans still care about the solo stakers, but the protocols using LayerZero are fine with one or two DVN setups.
This is not a post targeted towards any of the GMPs/protocols mentioned here. I wanted to voice out my concern because I hold a lot more ETH than I hold ZRO (I do hold some ZRO, sandmanarc.eth). I have also integrated LayerZero into the protocol I am currently building. Although I am having second thoughts about it now.
Let's demand better standards from our industry. - A humble community member, Sand](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GU-74oCa4AEZgKT.jpg)
Olivia
Online
Permacrab
@permacrab
knife juggler
T'Leth
Joined June 2012
141 Following
28 Followers
610 Posts
VUELVAN A GANAR LOCO
@Cointelegraph Bubbles are part of the process.
@IncomeSharks @MetamateDaz Half-disagree. Help your children buy their first home early. So much money needesly wasted on rent that could be used to build equity instead. Compound generational wealth.
@banteg Yeah but unlike the Switch 2 this one has games.
I've seen so many Americans say they don't care about the World Cup but I've yet to see someone ask them if they do.
These are the four most important things to track in crypto rn. If you arent, then you shouldnt be touching it.
-STRC continues to fall below $100 with an unsustainable dividend mechanism that has the potential to form a doom loop in the asset itself
-MSTR is at 1.2 mNAV. I expect it to fall BELOW NAV...that will be closer to a bottom
-ETFs continue massive outflow to the tune of billions
-Coinbase premium remains STRONGLY negative
Meanwhile, equities/tech are ripping as liquidity leaves crypto due to all of the above in favor of AI/Robotics
I warned about this last month when we were at 83k and the replies were incredibly toxic.
Real $BTC dominance collapses to march lows.
@TheDeFinvestor Last time I checked SKY was the freeze-able Maker rebranding with centralized control by one guy. Where the founder pulled an $AAVE (or rather $AAVE pulled a $MKR) and told long-time contributors and community to go fuck themselves. This is just my impression, a vibe if you will.
FUCK
JUST IN: Drake mentions Bitcoin in new song.
"I'm a $BTC crypto big-timer."
Some pretty stale, rancid, shit is pumping. I think we are about to get raped.
41 kidnappings of crypto holders in France in 3.5 months of 2026.
Why?
🥖 French tax officials selling crypto owners' data to criminals (Ghalia C.) + massive tax database leaks.
Now the state also wants IDs and private messages of social media users.
More data = More victims.
@CryptoKoryo They need to set some standards to participate. Using things like multi-sigs and centralized bridges should exclude you.
Why is Everyone Quiet about the Cross-Chain Honey Pots?
$10B+ at risk?
This post will cover:
1. DVNs on @LayerZero_Fndn
2. ISMs on @hyperlane
3. OFTs & Warp Assets
4. Non-dormant addresses on @ether_fi and @renzoai multisigs
"Decentralised Verifier Network" aka DVNs by LayerZero
LayerZero Labs DVN: 2/3 multisig
Nethermind DVN: 1/1 multisig
Stargate DVN: 1/1
Google Cloud DVN: 2/3
Horizen DVN: 2/2
Source: You gotta go to Etherscan and call the signerSize and quorum functions. Here are the contracts: Link [1] (in the reply)
Note: There is no guarantee that these multisigs are actually distributed and not maintained by a single person like in the case of Multichain.
The name "DVN" itself is misleading. It certainly mislead me into trusting them more. A DVN is a modular validator entity inside LayerZero. That means, if you choose a single DVN set-up, your cross chain messages will be solely validated by this DVN. You can choose multiple DVNs or m out n DVNs to secure your setup.
Most protocols (clients using LZ) have 2 DVN setups at max. I had to create this Dune dashboard myself to look into what's happening on-chain.
For instance, Stargate has 2 DVNs. Stargate DVN and Nethermind DVN. Both are 1/1 multisigs. Securing, checks notes, $442.84m.
Dune is doing a terrible job here, here's how the distribution of various configurations looks like. Look at the numbers that start tapering off as we go down the list. Dashboard link [2].
So, most protocols (clients using LZ) simply trust this one entity, LayerZero Labs, a 2/3 multisig. It's baffling to me that we're all fine with this and nobody is talking about it. We gotta push these teams towards more secure systems, rather push protocols that are using LayerZero to demand for more security.
Let's look at Hyperlane, LayerZero's biggest competitor at the moment.
First of all, thank God they call their default setup "Multisig ISM", ISM = "Interchain Security Module". They are at least honest about it. It is a multisig. Period.
Hyperlane has setup their default ISM to be a distributed set of validators with different quorums for different chains. Each of these validators in this multisig setups are different entities, like various DVNs on LayerZero.
Here's how their default setup looks like:
Arbitrum: 3/5 multisig
Base: 2/5
Blast: 2/3
BNB: 2/4
Ethereum: 3/7
Optimism: 2/5
(source: Link [3], note: they said this post prompted them to up their numbers, so this may have been updated)
It is not very far off from the LayerZero DVN setups. But atleast you can be sure that 3-7 of these entites are actively validating in the system. It also seems better than using a single LayerZero Labs DVN setup. By the way, in a m/n multisig setup, if n is >> m, you are compromised if ANY of the m keys are compromised. In their BNB setup, 2/4, if any of the 2 validators out of 4 are compromised, you are compromised.
If you compare these with Wormhole's default 13/19 setup, Wormhole looks a lot better. But I've heard it is upgradable. Do they need 13/19 signers to upgrade? I don't know.
There are two main arguments by the GMPs (General Messaging Protocols, LZ & HL in this case) defending the lack of security of individual setups at the moment.
1. You can make it as secure as you want by adding as many DVNs/ISMs as possible. This is a marketplace and the market isn't choosing their security right.
2. You can upgrade to a more secure setup when they are available.
Choosing your own security
In fact, I'm writing about this after I had to choose my own setup for my protocol built on LayerZero. I had no idea what to choose. LayerZero does not provide any information on the current usage distribution of DVNs, nor do they advice you on a secure setup as they want to be agnostic. Layerzeroscan only provides data on the distribution of messages by different protocols using LZ. But that is not useful to me at all. They don't even tell us what DVNs these protocols are using. That's why I built my own Dune dashboard.
Here are the most used DVNs across major EVM chains:
Outside of the top 6 DVNs I mentioned at the top of this post, none of the DVNs are getting any volume. Why would a protocol choose to even trust DVNs other than the active ones? What guarantee is there that they are active and will be active in the future? What if you brick your system by choosing a dying DVN? If a DVN is not getting any volume, they would rather turn off their nodes as it costs to run a DVN.
It's the same with complex DVNs or ISMs. If there is an ISM that is not being used, that means, it is not battle tested. If it is not securing any value, why would you trust it to secure your protocol? So the argument that these GMPs are agnostic marketplaces does not hold true at all. Someone has to help the crypto protocols choose the right setups.
It is as if Amazon offered a default product for all of your searches and gave you a list of other options without product availability, reviews or even a description.
In my experience, Hyperlane is more eager to engage their clients with education than LayerZero.
It should be easier for more DVNs to start competing in the GMP marketplaces. In reality, there is no way for them to market themselves to the protocols using Hyperlane/LayerZero outside of shouting into the void on Twitter. Apparently the teams(LZ said so) are currently working on dashboards to showcase more data about individual DVNs/ISMs. Maybe this post pushed them to do so.
The second main argument is that, protocols should use this trusted setup now, so that they can upgrade to a ZK bridge or a restaked security setup later down the line.
The Upgradability of Your Setup
First of all, I want to highlight that this is so far from the crypto ethos that got me into this space. Mutability, smh. Let's compare an ERC20 with an omnichain token.
An ERC20
1. Has a fixed supply that nobody can change (most of em)
2. Exists on a blockchain where nobody, including the team itself, can mint extra ERC20s
An OFT or A Warp Asset
1. Has a fixed supply in theory, but an unlimited number of tokens can be minted if the interop setup is compromised, unless there is a rate limit.
2. Has its interop setup managed by a multisig controlled by the token issuer (protocol). This multisig can change the rate limit as well (lol?).
3. Exists on multiple blockchains where if one of the chains is malicious, they might be able to mint as many tokens as possible, unless there is a rate limit, which can be changed.
Let's look at team multisigs for a second. At least they are dormant addresses locked up in a basement, right? Right?
@ether_fi is a protocol with $5.5B+ in TVL.
Here is the multisig (Link[4]) securing their weETH OFT. 5 out of these 6 wallets have been active in the last 2 months. That means a higher likelihood of getting their private keys stolen.. For context, Ronin ($600m) and Harmony Bridge ($100m) hacks were due to comprises of multisigs.
@renzoai is a protocol with $1.5B in TVL. And their ezETH is an xERC20. It is also secured by a 3/5 (multisig Link [5]). All 5 of these addresses have been active recently. And they all seem to be kinda interlinked. But I am not an expert on-chain sleuth to comment on that though.
Will Ethena's USDe ever depeg? Perhaps not due to their stablecoin design, but rather because of their interop setup (LayerZero Labs DVN + Horizen DVN, basically a 4/5). At least 7 of their 9 multisig addresses are dormant.
So, can we say a total of around $10B+ is at risk here?
I am not blaming these GMPs. They are simply selling a setup. I am pushing the community to demand enough security from the protocols that are using these setups. Did we all forget that the bridge hacks have accounted for >50% of all funds we have lost? Now we are offering billions more on a platter to the hackers around the world. Kim Jong-Un is probably rubbing his hands right now.
Native Bridges, Ignored, And Left for Dead
It is easy to point out problems than to offer solutions. What is the best security for cross-chain messaging/tokens right now then? I would suggest studying wstETH by Lido. It uses native bridges to bridge and also to control the upgradable token setups on L2s. The upgradability is controlled by the Lido DAO on L1. Except the upgradability aspect of this, I have no issues with this setup. There is no way an unlimited amount of wstETH can be minted in this case.
There will be solutions based on restaking in the future, hopefully they will offer a much better security than what we have today.
Closing Thoughts
I used to think very highly of LayerZero as a protocol. A protocol that is marketed https://t.co/jxO3ChhU2J as a peer next to Bitcoin and Ethereum. Bitcoin, Ethereum, LayerZero. But I do not feel strongly about it anymore. I don't think it's even close. Bitcoiners chose the smaller blocks chain, Ethereans still care about the solo stakers, but the protocols using LayerZero are fine with one or two DVN setups.
This is not a post targeted towards any of the GMPs/protocols mentioned here. I wanted to voice out my concern because I hold a lot more ETH than I hold ZRO (I do hold some ZRO, sandmanarc.eth). I have also integrated LayerZero into the protocol I am currently building. Although I am having second thoughts about it now.
Let's demand better standards from our industry. - A humble community member, Sand
![sandmanarc's tweet photo. Why is Everyone Quiet about the Cross-Chain Honey Pots?
$10B+ at risk?
This post will cover:
1. DVNs on @LayerZero_Fndn
2. ISMs on @hyperlane
3. OFTs & Warp Assets
4. Non-dormant addresses on @ether_fi and @renzoai multisigs
"Decentralised Verifier Network" aka DVNs by LayerZero
LayerZero Labs DVN: 2/3 multisig
Nethermind DVN: 1/1 multisig
Stargate DVN: 1/1
Google Cloud DVN: 2/3
Horizen DVN: 2/2
Source: You gotta go to Etherscan and call the signerSize and quorum functions. Here are the contracts: Link [1] (in the reply)
Note: There is no guarantee that these multisigs are actually distributed and not maintained by a single person like in the case of Multichain.
The name "DVN" itself is misleading. It certainly mislead me into trusting them more. A DVN is a modular validator entity inside LayerZero. That means, if you choose a single DVN set-up, your cross chain messages will be solely validated by this DVN. You can choose multiple DVNs or m out n DVNs to secure your setup.
Most protocols (clients using LZ) have 2 DVN setups at max. I had to create this Dune dashboard myself to look into what's happening on-chain.
For instance, Stargate has 2 DVNs. Stargate DVN and Nethermind DVN. Both are 1/1 multisigs. Securing, checks notes, $442.84m.
Dune is doing a terrible job here, here's how the distribution of various configurations looks like. Look at the numbers that start tapering off as we go down the list. Dashboard link [2].
So, most protocols (clients using LZ) simply trust this one entity, LayerZero Labs, a 2/3 multisig. It's baffling to me that we're all fine with this and nobody is talking about it. We gotta push these teams towards more secure systems, rather push protocols that are using LayerZero to demand for more security.
Let's look at Hyperlane, LayerZero's biggest competitor at the moment.
First of all, thank God they call their default setup "Multisig ISM", ISM = "Interchain Security Module". They are at least honest about it. It is a multisig. Period.
Hyperlane has setup their default ISM to be a distributed set of validators with different quorums for different chains. Each of these validators in this multisig setups are different entities, like various DVNs on LayerZero.
Here's how their default setup looks like:
Arbitrum: 3/5 multisig
Base: 2/5
Blast: 2/3
BNB: 2/4
Ethereum: 3/7
Optimism: 2/5
(source: Link [3], note: they said this post prompted them to up their numbers, so this may have been updated)
It is not very far off from the LayerZero DVN setups. But atleast you can be sure that 3-7 of these entites are actively validating in the system. It also seems better than using a single LayerZero Labs DVN setup. By the way, in a m/n multisig setup, if n is >> m, you are compromised if ANY of the m keys are compromised. In their BNB setup, 2/4, if any of the 2 validators out of 4 are compromised, you are compromised.
If you compare these with Wormhole's default 13/19 setup, Wormhole looks a lot better. But I've heard it is upgradable. Do they need 13/19 signers to upgrade? I don't know.
There are two main arguments by the GMPs (General Messaging Protocols, LZ & HL in this case) defending the lack of security of individual setups at the moment.
1. You can make it as secure as you want by adding as many DVNs/ISMs as possible. This is a marketplace and the market isn't choosing their security right.
2. You can upgrade to a more secure setup when they are available.
Choosing your own security
In fact, I'm writing about this after I had to choose my own setup for my protocol built on LayerZero. I had no idea what to choose. LayerZero does not provide any information on the current usage distribution of DVNs, nor do they advice you on a secure setup as they want to be agnostic. Layerzeroscan only provides data on the distribution of messages by different protocols using LZ. But that is not useful to me at all. They don't even tell us what DVNs these protocols are using. That's why I built my own Dune dashboard.
Here are the most used DVNs across major EVM chains:
Outside of the top 6 DVNs I mentioned at the top of this post, none of the DVNs are getting any volume. Why would a protocol choose to even trust DVNs other than the active ones? What guarantee is there that they are active and will be active in the future? What if you brick your system by choosing a dying DVN? If a DVN is not getting any volume, they would rather turn off their nodes as it costs to run a DVN.
It's the same with complex DVNs or ISMs. If there is an ISM that is not being used, that means, it is not battle tested. If it is not securing any value, why would you trust it to secure your protocol? So the argument that these GMPs are agnostic marketplaces does not hold true at all. Someone has to help the crypto protocols choose the right setups.
It is as if Amazon offered a default product for all of your searches and gave you a list of other options without product availability, reviews or even a description.
In my experience, Hyperlane is more eager to engage their clients with education than LayerZero.
It should be easier for more DVNs to start competing in the GMP marketplaces. In reality, there is no way for them to market themselves to the protocols using Hyperlane/LayerZero outside of shouting into the void on Twitter. Apparently the teams(LZ said so) are currently working on dashboards to showcase more data about individual DVNs/ISMs. Maybe this post pushed them to do so.
The second main argument is that, protocols should use this trusted setup now, so that they can upgrade to a ZK bridge or a restaked security setup later down the line.
The Upgradability of Your Setup
First of all, I want to highlight that this is so far from the crypto ethos that got me into this space. Mutability, smh. Let's compare an ERC20 with an omnichain token.
An ERC20
1. Has a fixed supply that nobody can change (most of em)
2. Exists on a blockchain where nobody, including the team itself, can mint extra ERC20s
An OFT or A Warp Asset
1. Has a fixed supply in theory, but an unlimited number of tokens can be minted if the interop setup is compromised, unless there is a rate limit.
2. Has its interop setup managed by a multisig controlled by the token issuer (protocol). This multisig can change the rate limit as well (lol?).
3. Exists on multiple blockchains where if one of the chains is malicious, they might be able to mint as many tokens as possible, unless there is a rate limit, which can be changed.
Let's look at team multisigs for a second. At least they are dormant addresses locked up in a basement, right? Right?
@ether_fi is a protocol with $5.5B+ in TVL.
Here is the multisig (Link[4]) securing their weETH OFT. 5 out of these 6 wallets have been active in the last 2 months. That means a higher likelihood of getting their private keys stolen.. For context, Ronin ($600m) and Harmony Bridge ($100m) hacks were due to comprises of multisigs.
@renzoai is a protocol with $1.5B in TVL. And their ezETH is an xERC20. It is also secured by a 3/5 (multisig Link [5]). All 5 of these addresses have been active recently. And they all seem to be kinda interlinked. But I am not an expert on-chain sleuth to comment on that though.
Will Ethena's USDe ever depeg? Perhaps not due to their stablecoin design, but rather because of their interop setup (LayerZero Labs DVN + Horizen DVN, basically a 4/5). At least 7 of their 9 multisig addresses are dormant.
So, can we say a total of around $10B+ is at risk here?
I am not blaming these GMPs. They are simply selling a setup. I am pushing the community to demand enough security from the protocols that are using these setups. Did we all forget that the bridge hacks have accounted for >50% of all funds we have lost? Now we are offering billions more on a platter to the hackers around the world. Kim Jong-Un is probably rubbing his hands right now.
Native Bridges, Ignored, And Left for Dead
It is easy to point out problems than to offer solutions. What is the best security for cross-chain messaging/tokens right now then? I would suggest studying wstETH by Lido. It uses native bridges to bridge and also to control the upgradable token setups on L2s. The upgradability is controlled by the Lido DAO on L1. Except the upgradability aspect of this, I have no issues with this setup. There is no way an unlimited amount of wstETH can be minted in this case.
There will be solutions based on restaking in the future, hopefully they will offer a much better security than what we have today.
Closing Thoughts
I used to think very highly of LayerZero as a protocol. A protocol that is marketed https://t.co/jxO3ChhU2J as a peer next to Bitcoin and Ethereum. Bitcoin, Ethereum, LayerZero. But I do not feel strongly about it anymore. I don't think it's even close. Bitcoiners chose the smaller blocks chain, Ethereans still care about the solo stakers, but the protocols using LayerZero are fine with one or two DVN setups.
This is not a post targeted towards any of the GMPs/protocols mentioned here. I wanted to voice out my concern because I hold a lot more ETH than I hold ZRO (I do hold some ZRO, sandmanarc.eth). I have also integrated LayerZero into the protocol I am currently building. Although I am having second thoughts about it now.
Let's demand better standards from our industry. - A humble community member, Sand](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GU_BLA2a4AIpyV_.jpg)
@alpha_pls Just use Axelar (but don't buy).
@banteg Axelar has never been hacked in big part because it doesn't use multi-sig (or uni-sig) contracts. But crypto is made of retards so it's down 99% while competitors with hacky-designs abound. Doing things right is worth fuck all in this "industry".
DeFi checklist:
* Can this asset fuck me?
* Can this protocol fuck me?
* Can a different asset in this protocol fuck me?
* Can a different protocol using the asset fuck me?
Just use $AAVE... with nonwrapped assets... that don't use multi-sig bridges... on isolated vaults.
layerzero let KelpDAO ship rsETH with a 1/1 DVN config. that's a single-sig bridge. one verifier approved 116,500 fake rsETH into existence, 36% of total supply, and aave/compound/morpho all accepted it as real collateral. 200+ OFTs are deployed on layerzero right now. nobody knows how many are running the same 1/1 config. stargate lost $400m in outflows in 12 hours. wormhole runs 19/19 guardian threshold. axelar uses a full validator set. the bridge competitive landscape just completely reopened and W and AXL haven't moved yet. layerzero's "security is the app's responsibility" defense is technically correct and reputationally fatal
After attacking the Head of the Catholic Church, Pope Leo XIV, in a rambling post earlier tonight for his criticisms of the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, President Trump posted this AI image to TruthSocial, portraying himself as Jesus Christ.
it all makes sense now. dario was still at openai in 2019. he left next year and took his marketing playbook with him. hasn't changed a thing since.
IRAN'S PARLIAMENT SPEAKER QALIBAF SAYS THE CEASEFIRE PROPOSAL INCLUDED LEBANON AND THE ENTIRE 'AXIS OF RESISTANCE' - POST ON X
IRAN'S PARLIAMENT SPEAKER QALIBAF SAYS "CEASEFIRE VIOLATIONS CARRY EXPLICIT COSTS AND STRONG RESPONSES" - POST ON X
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
hanzuzong 
Seen from United States
Stella Funk
Seen from Italy
Türkçe Altyazılı Porno
Seen from Turkey
An
Seen from Vietnam
Diary of Chloe Temple
Seen from Turkey
looza
Seen from Germany
🍑💦🍆
Seen from South Africa
Ayesha khan
Seen from Pakistan
BENBOI MANYOBAA
Seen from Netherlands
FAMOSAS VIRALES CATÁLOGO
Seen from United States
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
240.9M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119.2M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.8M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
111.6M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107.1M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
97.9M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.2M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
91.1M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
88.2M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
82.1M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
73.6M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
70.8M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
70.1M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.7M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
64.2M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
63.6M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.4M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.8M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
61.3M followers
X
@x
60.8M followers