Approximately $80,000 worth of Bitcoin was recently lost in a potential exploit on the BNB Chain. This incident, involving multiple suspicious transactions, has sparked discussions about the attacker’s intentions.
Small Loss, Big Questions
Although $80,000 is relatively small compared to typical crypto exploits, this incident has raised significant questions. On-chain security firm Cyvers suggests that the attacker might be a white hat hacker—an ethical hacker searching for vulnerabilities in the blockchain. In a May 28 post on X, Cyvers stated:
“The total loss is approximately $80K. The attacker received funding via TornadoCash and has also interacted with the Binance exchange, indicating a possible white hat action.”
Despite using Tornado Cash, a cryptocurrency mixing service, the exploiter also interacted with Binance, the world’s largest centralized exchange. This interaction is unusual for malicious hackers, who generally avoid large exchanges due to the Know Your Customer (KYC) requirements, which can reveal their identities.
Ethical Hacking or Malicious Intent?
The nature of this exploit remains uncertain. While the identity of the exploited token contract is still unknown, the attacker’s actions have fueled speculation. Typically, sophisticated crypto hackers with malicious intent avoid centralized exchanges like Binance to maintain anonymity.
Also Read: BNB Smart Chain Introduces Liquid Staking
Previous Incidents with Positive Outcomes
This potential exploit follows closely on the heels of a major incident involving Gala Games. A week prior, Gala Games was exploited for $23 million worth of GALA tokens. The exploit occurred due to an issue with internal controls, which the team has since resolved. In a surprising turn, the hacker returned $22.3 million worth of Ether after the stolen funds were frozen. This return came after Gala’s co-founder and CEO, Eric Schiermeyer, revealed the attacker’s identity and home address.
In another recent case, $71 million worth of cryptocurrencies stolen in a wallet poisoning scam was returned. The unknown attacker decided to return the funds after the high-profile incident attracted attention from multiple blockchain investigation firms. This suggests that the attacker was a malicious actor who feared the consequences of mainstream attention.
The frequency of such incidents highlights a surge in crypto-related crimes. In May alone, significant amounts of stolen funds have been returned due to various factors, including the fear of identification and legal repercussions.
