Freeze stfil user’s transferred asset address #989
Replies: 17 comments 24 replies
-
|
I have been closely following what’s going on with stfil protocol in the past couple days and have been quite evolved in a couple (now) community self-organized effort in response of what’s happening, so I have decent context on (1) what happened that’s shown as fact on chain, i.e smart contract activities; (2) what may or may not happened off chain, I.e: what allegedly caused protocol changes in stfil pool. I also have a lot of sympathy for the impacted teams and users, and have been working with community teams to support some impacted individuals. The following might be controversial: I personally do not think this is a good idea. The token movement was triggered by a series of signed transactions & user contract logics, it doesn’t seem to be caused by bugs in the l1 protocol or bugs in smart contract (disclaimer: I’m not suggesting l1 protocol should shift and react to smart contract bugs or not) . It will be a bad precedent to introduce censorship of FIL movement in blockchain protocol (that’s outside of the filecoin token econ protocol). Also, driving fip consensus, deploying protocol changes and network upgrades takes time. Fwiw I think it might be possible (hopefully) for the community to do an emergency upgrade for resolving some critical network consensus/security issues that severely impact network stableness and security - I don’t think this is one of those issues. There is also much unknowns to what’s effective to what the proposer want - the funds might move again to a different address during anytime from now before an upgrade, what do we do in that case? I’d like to keep brainstorming / establishing supports that could help impacted users, but I personally don’t think this proposal will be one of them. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I very much support @jennijuju's perspective here. This is not a situation where protocol-level censorship can be reasonably justified. (There aren't many....) Allowing a protocol-level resolution would set a bad precedent that would ultimately degrade the guarantees offered by the protocol. A FIP like this might make more sense in a context where the guarantees of the protocol are inadvertently violated, but even this would need to be approached with extreme skepticism. In my view, both the stFIL miners and token holders should be aware of the risks of engaging with a such a novel application. This is an unfortunately reality of our industry, and the STFIL team did take reasonable measures to communicate this to prospective token holders and miners. Measures to counter the effects of these recent events are valid and in the best interest of the ecosystem, but need to come through other means. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
(I deleted a reply here that is duplicated as a top-level comment below) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Not many in quantity? Do you have a conscience when you say this? How many Chinese fans have earned this hard-earned money? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
There is an ancient Chinese saying that whoever wins the hearts of the people wins the world。 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I am a loyal fan of Filecoin and one of the victims. I have the following thoughts, which may seem naive
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
As a core dev, I agree with @jennijuju's take on this: I have sympathy but intervening would set a bad precedent. Furthermore, such an intervention is unlikely to gain wide community/SP acceptance due to concerns about setting such a precedent. At the end of the day, the L1 protocol is working as correctly. I'd also like to highlight how this differs from Ethereum's "DAO Hack": The DAO Hack took advantage of a poorly understood edge-case in the EVM, arguably a bug. The Ethereum core devs intervened because the protocol itself was, arguably, at fault. In the STFIL case, the STFIL contract, multisigs, etc. all worked correctly, they just weren't secure against rubber-hose cryptonalysis. The only protection against such an attack is decentralization: you can't reveal keys you don't have. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
To be clear, PL/FF has no power or authority to do anything without community consensus; we've seen many less controversial FIPs fail for this reason in the past. Any action here means a hard fork, requiring consensus between the SPs, core devs, and token holders. I doubt that'll happen. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
You are just thinking from the perspective of developers, but have you ever reflected on why the FIL coin price is so low? If it comes to technology, have you solved the pain points of FIL? What is the ecosystem of a few years of FVM development, and how high is the TPS of FVM? If you start an IPC and procrastinate every day, have you solved it? Your technology is not good, and you still want to talk to us about technology and consensus. The biggest consensus in the cryptocurrency circle is capital. If you have money, you are Dogecoin and Pepecoin. If you don't have money, even if you have good technology, it's garbage. Moreover, your technology is not very good. It's not me targeting you, such as the Poka project and the near project. The technology is also good, but the ecosystem is crossing, and if you talk about technology, you lose, |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
FIL+ can be implemented without a vote, I don't know what else can't be done? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Note that if the argument not to intervene is "the amounts and number of users impacted are to small to justify it" or "the stFIL situation is not a protocol-level issue, but a community one and code is law", then a whale (such as PL or FF) could also propose to take upon themselves the "burden of the incertitude" with the stFIL situation by proposing a smart contract that exchange stFIL for FIL, allowing the stFIL userbase to recover FIL in exchange for their stFIL. Effectively solving the issue without requiring a FIP. If the stFIL situation is not a "hack" or a "rug pull", this would mean the said whale would be able to swap the stFIL they would accumulate back to FIL once the stFIL smart contract is "fixed". Or is the stFIL smart contract too broken atm to allow for stFIL transfers? That doesn't seem to be the case afaik. Knowing that as per #943 more than half of the circulating supply of FIL has been vested in favor of FF and PL, 5M FIL seems like not much "stake" for them, unlike for the users who might have trusted stFIL because of how official accounts, employees and related projects seemed to promote or support stFIL and collaborated with them. Furthermore, saying this should not be solved at the L1 level is an opinion, but if the majority of the community does want to solve it at the L1 level, then so shall it be lest it leads to a hard fork anyway. (Whether that's what the community wants or not is unclear at best to me at the moment, all I can see is that the core-devs are advising against doing so while some users are asking for it.) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Agree. I think FF should take on this responsibility, as they promoted the stfil and made it believe that it was one of the safest, without raising any suspicion about the activities of its members. FF could exchange the stfil tokens from holders and try to recover the lost filecoins in court. It's not much for the foundation, but it's a lot for small investors. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I agree with vladimir. FF should take on this responsibility, as they promoted the stfil and made it believe that it was one of the safest, without raising any suspicion about the activities of its members. FF could exchange the stfil tokens from holders and try to recover the lost filecoins in court. It's not much for the foundation, but it's a lot for small investors. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
So it’s not entirely relevant to the FIP discussion here, but I want to gently push back against this idea that the Filecoin Foundation promoted STFIL to any special degree except as one of many projects in the ecosystem as a whole, or made any claims about the quality of its services. First— though I imagine obvious to most of the folks here — the Filecoin ecosystem isn’t run by the Filecoin Foundation. FF has a few limited functions that any open source software foundation (like, say, the Linux or Apache Foundations) performs for its ecosystem participants. They include managing governance, some dev and other grants, legal and policy work, and running some of the events and comms channels that promote the network as a whole. As part of that advocacy of the network, we’re frequently point out many different builders, but never with the intention of promoting one service over another, or trying to endorse one or the other as the “officially approved” product. On the contrary, we try hard to be even-handed toward all our builders. Our aim is convey the diversity of the system, not pick winners or act as advocates for any particular service. We may disagree, but I went through your examples, and I don’t believe I see any that I think a reasonable person would read as anything except a mention of STFIL as part of general promotion of the many projects in the ecosystem — including the ones that did not come from the Foundation at all. To be specific: Example 1: Lists the STFIL twitter account, but only five tweets down in a thread talking about “800+” projects, along with four other competing leasing services. This is pretty much par for the course. STFIL also sponsored an event FF ran in Las Vegas, unless I may have missed something, all of FF’s mentions there highlit their status as a sponsor, rather than their product. They spoke at Fil Dev Summit, an event that FF did not run but did sponsor, etc. If you revisit any of these Twitter or Youtube accounts, you will also note that these mentions — whether it’s by FF, Ansa, or individuals who care about Filecoin — are part of a constant stream of call outs to hundreds of our ecosystem projects: the aim of which, again, is primarily to convey just how wide and vibrant the whole Filecoin platform is. Again, I may have missed something (and I asked our comms team to send me everything FF has ever said about STFIL, plus as much as they could find from other prominent figures who talk about Filecoin, including Ansa and PL), but I haven’t seen anything that I would reasonably imagine would lead someone to decide, solely on the basis of that mention alone, to become an STFIL customer. Okay. That was a lot, and somewhat of a side quest compared to the FIP proposal. I really don’t intend to diminish the pain and loss that many customers of STFIL are feeling, and we at FF along with others are continuing to do what we can to help everyone affected. I just wanted to make clarify that FF did not make the heavy promotions that this post and others might imply. (If anyone wants to get into a further discussion about this, it may be better to continue it on the stfil.info site where a similar discussion is taking place, rather than distract from the technical proposal here. If you want to hear updates on what we and others in the ecosystem are doing to help, I update as often as I can in the #stfil-response channel on the Filecoin Slack, which you can join here.) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Based on public information, it appears that the funds were seized by law enforcement as part of a judicial inquiry into potential financial crimes. This is not the DAO hack, and I'm not aware of any evidence of foul play. While the STFIL team should be considered innocent until proven guilty (and I have no reason to believe that they are guilty), the proper response to a judicial seizure of funds is to seek remedy within the legal system. Weaponizing the L1 against the police is generally a bad idea and could expose other network participants to criminal liability. I am strongly against the proposal: code is code and law is law. A proposal to reimburse the affected lenders using other funds (e.g. from the mining reserve) would likely not carry the same risks and would be more palatable. Nonetheless, I likely would not support such a proposal: STFIL users were paid a premium for the risk they took, unlike the uninvolved network participants who would be diluted to make them whole. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
So it's not censorship resistant: Governments can rewrite the code and confiscate assets just because they can. Code is code and law is law. Even if stfil members are guilty of something, the assets don't belong to them. I know it was not on L1, but staking is an important part of the ecosystem that cannot be neglected. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Quite the contrary: L1 censorship is precisely what the OP proposes, i.e., limiting the ability of an account to transact. I'm arguing we shouldn't go there or set that precedent. Even if you support it in this particular case, keep in mind that the precedent goes both ways. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Who are the bad actors? What is the purpose of a blockchain? I don't know what kind of threat makes someone hand over their private keys. This also could set a precedent for layer 1 to be affected one day, if a government decides. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
In this circumstance - the implementation of the ST-FIL contract is likely the "bad actor" in question. (My understanding is) there was a 4/6 multi-sig wallet that allowed any party with access to 4/6 keys to deploy a new contract update changing anything about the smart contract (including violating the expectations of the original participants in the program). It seems that those 4/6 multisig keys were not well distributed or isolated globally, and therefore created an accessible back door for someone to take over the smart contract, deploy a change to the contract logic, and remove user funds. A key take away for the whole staking ecosystem is to ensure its impossible for a centralized party (including a government) to take over a smart contract and break user expectations. The best way to do that would be to make the contract itself immutable - with no back doors or ways to change the contract logic that could remove user funds without their consent/reimbursement. This requires more advance planning to audit the final contract up front, or make any smart contract upgrades opt-in for participants so they can be certain they want to proceed with any change. Doing so also creates more built-in protections for users that can be encoded in the tech itself, and audited by the community. I think we should set the standard expectation for all DeFi projects to include this level of rigor. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Since the quantity is not large and there are not many users, could you please ask the foundation and protocol laboratory to take out a small part of yours? Your billions of fil, this 5 million fil is indeed a small amount for you. Are you willing to take it out? Funny, |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
这种傻逼提案要是实现了，FIL 价格 估计就 0.0000000000001 U了。 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Chiming in to concur with @jennijuju, @Stebalien, and @jsoares. I empathise with STFIL holders. I've been engaging since the beginning to help at a technical level. I'm planning to post an X thread soon, so stay tuned. However... Neither the Filecoin/FVM platform nor the STFIL contracts themselves behaved unexpectedly. Based on what's public knowledge, a state actor appears to have launched an investigation on the STFIL team, and these funds are allegedly under some form of seizure (judicial, executive?). The agency gained access to the admin multisig via the investigation by obtaining the keys of 4/6 signers (at least). They deployed a set of contract upgrades to block withdrawals for LPs, and to presumably take possession of liquid FIL in the staking pool. In my opinion, the Filecoin community/ecosystem should have no interest in antagonizing or interfering with an ongoing investigation; this is bad precedent to set, and dangerous for the entire community. Affected parties should organise to seek legal counsel. Re: comparisons with the Ethereum DAO. The latter was a self-funding mechanism, so its early hack became life-threatening to Ethereum itself. Futhermore, it exploited and exposed a rough edge of the nascent protocol (reentrancy). In fact, that was the start of arguably the most recurring smart contract development advice ("guard against reentrancy"). Conversely, STFIL is one application-space lending pool out of many, and no technical gotchas were exploited that I'm aware of. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
After the unfortunate incident of stfile, FF has always emphasized the importance of centralization, and at the same time has been promoting the FIL+ community project with a tendency to centralize, even if there are different opinions, it will be ignored. We call on the community to use the same standards to evaluate its recommended projects. The community must be neutral and cannot have double standards. Has FF assessed that FIL+ has similar risks? If so, what is the solution? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Do you mean that FF (and the Filecoin project in general) has emphasized the importance of decentralization? If so, I agree with you. And yes, I think many of the concerns people have with Fil+ is that it has a centralizing effect, or gives too much power to a few actors. Do you have any particular thoughts to what lessons could be learned from STFIL and applied to the current implementation of Fil+? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
2 simple lessons |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
It may not have been a code problem but it is a serious conceptual flaw |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Decentralization + centralization = centralization. PL/FF needs to prove that it is safe and solve users' security concerns about centralization and possible unfair benefit transfer. In my opinion, FIL+ has changed the protocol and it would be inappropriate to make big changes without a vote from the community. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Although I hold great reverence for the ideals of PL and FF, which is why I hold FIL, if this matter is not properly handled, I will be completely disappointed in Filecoin. I believe the entire Chinese community feels the same way. Over the years, the Chinese community has made tremendous contributions to Filecoin. In the early days of mining, many of us investors invested in mining equipment and tokens, only to see the prices skyrocket and get stuck. However, we still believe in the grand vision of Filecoin and continue to hold on. Later, as China's policies changed and mining was banned, many miners were investigated by the police and had their assets confiscated. Although there were some bad apples among these miners, investors were almost wiped out in this purge. Afterwards, the remaining investors and miners began moving their nodes out of the country, and those who stayed were cautious to avoid police attention. After the launch of FVM, we investors seemed to see hope, as we believed in the protection of smart contracts and no longer had to worry about miners being controlled by the police or running away with the money. Unexpectedly, even smart contracts could not protect us this time, and this smart contract was a top project strongly supported by FF officials. If we cannot trust this, what can we trust? Can we only trust Bitcoin? Only trust offline wallets? I hope FF can think from the perspective of Chinese investors and consider China's special national conditions. If all efforts cannot stop the greed of the police and their inhumane handling of cases, then a hard fork may be the best option in the worst-case scenario. The spirit of decentralization is indeed important and cool, but if it is exploited by bad people, is this decentralized technology still just? There is a Chinese saying, "Things are dead, people are alive." It means that people hope to be flexible and not dogmatic when dealing with things. I am not a technician, and I don't know how to deal with it technically for the best solution. This relies on the geniuses of FF, but I hope not to completely reject the hard fork option from the beginning, at least leaving room for discussion. Finally, I want to express my respect for FF's grand goals again, but please don't leave us ordinary followers behind on the road to achieving these grand goals. You are like Moses, leading us out of Egypt. Please lead us all the way to Canaan and don't abandon us in the wilderness. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
This requires changing the code so that all miners can upgrade and agree. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
告filecoin所有人员：不要轻视stfil的负面影响 1、stfil作为fvm虚拟机defil排名第二的生态项目，从2023年4月份开始到9月份都是排名第一。 2、先不管stfil在中国是否违法，从项目本身而言，是去中心化的智能合约，是filecoin 生态重要组成部分。 3、stfil团队是最早参与filecoin fvm虚拟机的项目之一，一度获得filecoin 官方组织的全球黑客松大赛第二名〔中华区第一名〕，其技术基层堆栈对fvm的defil发展起到了重要的推动作用。 4、stfil得到协议实验室PL的间接投资〔通过OV孵化器〕，并得到很多场合的正面介绍。 5、stfil得到filecoin 和filecoin 基金会以及附属部门在众多场合的介绍和赞扬，肯定。 6、stfil拥有500万fil的供应量，sp节点一度超100个，算力一度超1EiB，按目前来算，占整个filecoin 主网算力的二十三分之一。〔5月25日filecoin 算力是22.91EiB〕。 7、可想而知，stfil事件如果得不到很好的解决将会对filecoin 发展有十分负面的影响。 8、请filecoin 官方团队，全球各核心开发人员，filecoin 基金会，filecoin 的sp，社区人员等，采取一切可能的措施，比如技术手段，比如主网分叉等，保护stfil的500多万的fil不受到损失。 9、不要低估，不要轻视stfil的负面影响。 虽然不单单是stfil的因素造成的，但也有很大的影响因素。 SP和fil持有者，看到了filecoin 官方，包括基金会，核心开发人员，各附属组织，社区成员等，不作为，漠视，冷淡，比如核心开发人员否定了filecoin 分叉的FIP提议。看不到应该承担的责任和担当。 从而对filecoin 的发展失去了信心，不愿意继续质押fil来封装算力！ 造成fil流通量大增（通胀）。 10、这些，直接会反应在FIL的市场价格上。一目了然。 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
A warning to everyone at Filecoin: Don’t underestimate the negative impact of stfil
Judging from the filecoin main network data, since the stfil incident on April 5, the filecoin computing power has dropped from 24.569EiB to 22.91EiB on May 25, and the computing power has dropped by 1.659EiB, which is 1698.816PiB. Although it is not only caused by stfil factors, there are also great influencing factors. SP and fil holders have seen filecoin officials, including the foundation, core developers, affiliated organizations, community members, etc., inaction, indifference, and indifference. For example, the core developers rejected the FIP proposal for the filecoin fork. Can't see the responsibilities and responsibilities that should be assumed. As a result, I lost confidence in the development of filecoin and was unwilling to continue to pledge fil to encapsulate computing power! Causes a large increase in fil circulation (inflation).
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
如果FF/PL因为filecoin下面的一个defi项目就硬分叉，那么这个链也不会玩了，就是给他们把质押在stfil的币找回来了，他们也会跑得比谁都快。 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
in the end exchanges make the decision what to support. they decide what fork of the chain will die miners can always mine on both forks at little cost overhead |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
"stfil has an accident, and I dare not renew it. I can rest assured that the money is in my hand." 〔Translated from the Chinese community Original words〕翻译自华人社区 原话：stfil 都出事了，不敢再续期了，币拿在手里放心 这是一位filecoin 算力质押者的心声！这绝对不是个例，而是很多人都有这样的想法！ 不要低估stfil事件负面的影响力！ This is the voice of a filecoin computing power staker! This is definitely not an isolated case, but many people have this idea! They cannot see the determination and responsibility of Filecoin official and Filecoin foundation and community to protect investors, and they cannot see the future of fil! Let me ask you: With more than 5 million FIL, filecoin FVM virtual machine, the second most important ecological damage, if not solved well, how huge the impact will be! Don't underestimate the negative impact of the stfil incident!
以下是社区提出的“冻结stfil用户的转移资产地址”989提案 “官方、核心开发者和社区表现出来的轻视和冷漠，以及不负责任”！这是造成filecoin 算力持续下降重要因素之一，表现在最近很多算力提前终止扇区，拿回质押，这一点从销毁大幅增加可以看出！ The following is the 989 initiative put forward by the community to "Freeze stfil user’s transferred asset address #989" "the contempt and indifference shown by the official, core developers and the community, and the lack of regret"! It shows that a lot of computing power terminates the sector early and takes back the pledge. This can be seen from the substantial increase in theory! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
As a neutral person, if I agree, it will be more dangerous. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
SUI生态项目Cetus被盗2.6亿美元跟Filecoin生态项目STFIL被转移500万FIL之官方及社区的处理方式大对比！一目了然！FIL表现这么弱，在座各位都有责任！一、SUI下面的生态项目Cetus被盗2.6亿美元，SUI官方行动迅速，并采取一系列可能的措施和方法（包括协议升级拿回资产等），积极行动，保护投资者资金！ SUI基金会借款给Cetus，确保全额赔付客户（当时，也有人建议Filecoin基金会 这么处理STFIL事件，但……没有任何回应，不愿意出一分钱）！ SUI官方极其重视下面的生态项目。网友：我对SUI更加看好了！ 二、Filecoin官方和Filecoin 基金会及社区在处理类似事件（STFIL，被非法转移500多万FIL，当时市值达3亿人民币）表现出来的态度！（拒绝冻结被转移的资金地址和升级协议帮客户拿回资产！！！！表现出来的消极和目光短视、狭隘等）跟SUI官方和社区对比，千壤之别！ 当时很多网友表示：不敢质押了！随后filecoin算力出现持续下降，至今都没有恢复！ 当时一位大户表示：STFIL事件出来后，我把手上所有的FIL马上卖掉了！（当时价格在8U以上，之后几天出现大跌……持续下跌，目前3U以下……） 不要忽视和轻视每一个生态项目！不要以为这仅仅是filecoin 一个生态项目而已！不要低估每个生态项目的影响力！这几年，多少filecoin 生态项目出走到其他链上？ Filecoin 没有这么强壮，相反，十分脆弱！因为STFIL的处理方式，对Filecoin 本来就脆弱的生态体系造成极大打击，寒了多少生态项目的心！ （有人会问，2024年4月5日STFIL事发后，价格还涨了几天？那是因为加密市场在反弹，知道的人还不多，之后几天事件发酵后，全网都知道了，特别是Filecoin官方和社区的不作为或轻视、冷漠……等，资金用脚投票和表示，价格一溃千里…… ） 如今FIL表现这么弱，在座各位都有责任！ ————————————————————
The SUI Foundation lent money to Cetus to ensure full compensation to customers (at that time, some people also suggested that the Filecoin Foundation handle the STFIL incident in this way, but... there was no response and they were unwilling to pay a penny)! SUI officials attach great importance to the ecological projects below. Netizens: I am more optimistic about SUI!
At that time, many netizens said: I dare not pledge! Subsequently, the computing power of filecoin continued to decline and has not recovered to this day! At that time, a large investor said: After the STFIL incident came out, I sold all the FIL in my hand immediately! (The price was above 8U at the time, and it fell sharply in the next few days... It continued to fall and is currently below 3U...) Don't ignore and despise every ecological project! Don't think that this is just an ecological project of filecoin! Don't underestimate the influence of each ecological project! In recent years, how many filecoin ecological projects have gone to other chains? Filecoin is not so strong, on the contrary, it is very fragile! Because of the way STFIL was handled, it caused a great blow to Filecoin's already fragile ecological system, and chilled the hearts of many ecological projects! (Some people may ask, after the STFIL incident on April 5, 2024, how many days did the price rise? That's because the crypto market was rebounding, and not many people knew about it. After the incident fermented for a few days, the whole network knew about it, especially the inaction or contempt, indifference, etc. of Filecoin officials and the community, the funds voted with their feet and expressed, and the price collapsed... ) Now that FIL is so weak, everyone here is responsible!
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Sui’s Response to the Cetus Exploit Attitude: The Sui Foundation and Cetus team demonstrated a proactive and responsible stance. The article highlights that Sui’s official response was swift, transparent, and focused on user protection, which aligns with posts on X praising their "textbook-level" handling. The community and official team worked collaboratively, emphasizing accountability and user trust. Measures: Immediate Action: Within hours of the May 22, 2025, exploit, Cetus paused its smart contracts to prevent further losses, as noted in the Medium article and corroborated by Foresight News. This rapid response limited the damage. Asset Recovery: Lookonchain reported that approximately $160 million of the $260 million stolen was frozen, showcasing effective coordination between Cetus and Sui. The hacker converted some funds to USDC and moved them to Ethereum, but the quick freeze mitigated further loss. Compensation Plan: The Sui Foundation provided a loan to ensure 100% asset restitution for affected users, a move highlighted in the Medium article and X posts as a strong commitment to user protection. This was executed within days, with clear communication to the community. Community Engagement: The Sui community actively discussed the incident on platforms like X, with users expressing shock but also approval of the rapid response. The Foundation’s transparency in outlining steps via official channels bolstered confidence. Effectiveness: The measures were highly effective. Freezing a significant portion of the stolen funds and guaranteeing full compensation restored user trust. The Medium article notes that Sui’s market performance remained relatively stable post-incident, suggesting minimal long-term damage to its reputation. X posts reflect community approval, with users calling Sui’s response exemplary. The combination of technical action (contract pause, asset freeze) and financial support (loan for compensation) addressed both immediate and long-term concerns. Filecoin’s Response to the STFIL Incident Attitude: The Medium article portrays Filecoin’s response to the 5 million FIL transfer from the STFIL project as inadequate and lacking accountability. The Filecoin Foundation and community appeared less coordinated and transparent compared to Sui, with a slower and less decisive reaction. This perception is echoed in X posts, which contrast Filecoin’s handling unfavorably with Sui’s. Measures: Delayed Response: The article suggests that the Filecoin Foundation’s reaction was sluggish, with no immediate steps to freeze or recover the transferred FIL. Unlike Sui, there’s no evidence from available sources of rapid technical intervention to limit damage. Lack of Compensation: The Medium article criticizes the absence of a clear compensation plan for affected users, contrasting this with Sui’s full restitution commitment. No web or X sources indicate any financial support or loan from the Filecoin Foundation to mitigate losses. Community Engagement: The Filecoin community’s response, as implied in the article, was fragmented, with limited official communication to reassure users. While Filecoin has a history of active developer engagement, this incident lacked the transparent, community-driven resolution seen in Sui’s case. Regulatory Context: The article and other sources, like TechFlow, reference Filecoin’s past regulatory challenges, suggesting that compliance issues may have hindered a robust response. This could indicate internal or structural limitations within the ecosystem. Effectiveness: Filecoin’s response was less effective, as per the Medium article’s critique. The failure to freeze assets or provide a clear compensation plan likely eroded user trust. The article notes that Filecoin’s market performance suffered more significantly than Sui’s post-incident, reflecting community dissatisfaction. X posts reinforce this, with users highlighting Filecoin’s weaker handling compared to Sui’s decisive actions. The lack of transparency and actionable measures left the community feeling neglected. Comparative Analysis Attitude: Sui: Displayed a proactive, user-centric attitude, prioritizing transparency and accountability. The Foundation’s willingness to step in with financial support underscored a commitment to ecosystem stability. Filecoin: Appeared reactive and less accountable, with the Medium article suggesting that the Foundation and community failed to take responsibility, possibly due to regulatory or structural constraints. Measures: Sui: Swift contract pausing, asset freezing, and a funded compensation plan set a high standard. The coordination between Cetus and the Sui Foundation was seamless, as evidenced by the $160 million frozen and loan support. Filecoin: Lacked immediate technical interventions like asset freezing and offered no clear compensation strategy. The absence of detailed official actions in available sources suggests a less robust response. Effectiveness: Sui: Successfully mitigated damage, restored user funds, and maintained market confidence, as seen in stable token performance and positive community sentiment on X. Filecoin: Struggled to contain the fallout, with no reported recovery of the 5 million FIL and a lack of user restitution, leading to greater market and community impact, as noted in the Medium article. Broader Context and Critical Perspective Sui’s newer infrastructure and “Meta” background (stemming from ex-Facebook Diem/Novi teams) may have enabled a more agile response, as it’s designed for scalability and innovation. Filecoin, while a pioneer in decentralized storage, has faced criticism for its complex economic model and regulatory scrutiny, which may have constrained its ability to act decisively. The Medium article’s claim that “everyone is responsible” for Filecoin’s weak performance is somewhat hyperbolic, as external factors like market dynamics and regulatory pressures also play a role. However, Sui’s ability to leverage its Foundation’s resources and community trust contrasts starkly with Filecoin’s apparent inaction. Conclusion Sui’s handling of the Cetus exploit was markedly more effective than Filecoin’s response to the STFIL incident. Sui’s proactive attitude, swift measures (contract pause, asset freeze, compensation), and transparent communication restored user confidence and minimized market impact. Filecoin’s slower, less transparent response, with no clear recovery or compensation plan, left users dissatisfied and likely contributed to a weaker market position. While both ecosystems face unique challenges, Sui’s approach serves as a stronger model for crisis management in decentralized networks. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
FIL表现弱市的原因之一！网友：STFIL流出200万FIL会砸盘吗？#fil $fil #filecoin filecoin #ipfs ipfs fil https://medium.com/@wrx370113192/fil%E8%A1%A8%E7%8E%B0%E5%BC%B1%E5%B8%82%E7%9A%84%E5%8E%9F%E5%9B%A0%E4%B9%8B%E4%B8%80-%E7%BD%91%E5%8F%8B-stfil%E6%B5%81%E5%87%BA200%E4%B8%87fil%E4%BC%9A%E7%A0%B8%E7%9B%98%E5%90%97-8956f65fa03f |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
FIL这么弱，在座各位都有责任！ |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
FIP: #990
Currently, more than 4.5 million FIL of Stfil user assets have been transferred to “unknown addresses” - https://filfox.info/en/address/f410falck3ysg7e2k4outtq2r24ytd66cuddydnoga6a, which most likely belong to the police.
According to "customary practice" these assets will soon be sold off in the secondary market, and all investors and community members should pay attention and take action.
I propose that FF and PL should make freezing this account and formally consider how to implement it and take action!
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions