0/ Today, the Ethereum Foundation completed a bilateral swap of ~21,269 aWETH to wstETH, coordinated with @LidoFinance and @mellowprotocol as part of their ongoing deleveraging work.
2/5
BitMine's Crypto NAV (net asset value) is $39.84 per $BMNR share:
- ETH $8.24 billion (1.7mm $ETH tokens)
- BTC $22 million (192 $BTC coins)
- treasury cash (unencumbered) $562 million
= NAV $8.82 billion
- fully diluted shares outstanding 221,515,180
= NAV per share $39.84 per $BMNR share
Chairman: Thomas "Tom" Lee @fundstrat
Ticker: $BMNR
@hasufl 100% agree, there is zero reason for a 20B+ AUM CEX to be blind signing transactions coming from a website for their cold wallets instead of having a institutional grade fully offline custody setup
This is a tricky thing to answer (and not because I'm investor in Safe - my stake is tiny and I couldn't care less about it relative to my reputation)
For Safes and other smart wallets to be useful, the ability to make secure signatures must exist as a complement.
Safe provides one such possibility through the centralized front end, but it should never be relied on exclusively.
I would blame Safe most for not working more with the largest and most at-risk Safe users to educate them on secure signing practices to ensure secure signing is abundant.
Secondarily, I would blame Safe for getting compromised, and I hope we eventually learn how that happened exactly.
But the reality is that
1) independent message verification for Bybit is easy and prevents almost every hack
2) perpetually preventing a frontend from becoming compromised is comparatively much harder
3) drawing attention to 2) instead of 1) prevents people from learning the right lesson, which is to adopt secure signing practices and stop trusting frontends
@safe Since it is not clear in @safe’s update:
The front end served by SAFE from https://t.co/SjXAhHlxGL was fully compromised and could have affected any users from that front end, however only Bybit was attacked.