The fact that something is dangerous means that others don't do it well.
= What others don't do is sweet.
As @MMTFinance collaborates with Bidpad, expectations are rising as the possibility of breaking into exchanges increases.
However, MOVE-based smart contracts are risky because they are not part of a sufficiently stress-tested ecosystem.
Who will become the hero of this chaotic era?
Anyway, gathering TVL in Non-EVM is no easy task, but Sui impressively collects it based on yapping + real-world usage.
The SUI ecosystem cartel @WalrusProtocol and @bluefinapp have also shown aggressive movements recently, and especially Bluefin has demonstrated impressive performance in the Perp DEX bull market.
(Personally wrapping up with Japan's Sui Jin, which has a refreshing charm different from European Jin.)
Thank you.
Why are non-EVM chains frequently represented by major DeFi hacks?
I have a fear of depositing large amounts into DeFi on non-EVM chains. In fact, on chains like Sui, Aptos, and Stacks, which are not EVM-based, there have been many cases where the main DeFi protocols have been hacked.
Because of this, even though I know that the deposit rewards from @MMTFinance will be attractive due to airdrops, I cannot send a lot of assets.
So why are non-EVM chains more prone to hacking?
Hacking a blockchain is very difficult. (I was going to write it's nearly impossible, but I changed my mind.)
However, writing programs (smart contracts) for DeFi is done by humans, and humans always make mistakes. Therefore, DeFi always has to bear the worst risk of protocol hacking.
EVM chains have also historically experienced extremely large DeFi hacking incidents.
Through this process, the Ethereum and EVM ecosystem have countless open-source projects represented by OpenZeppelin, Uniswap, Curve, etc., that have been reused, attacked, and validated. In other words, there are now many safe open-source projects that can be used directly.
The experience of audit firms regarding EVM smart contract code is overwhelmingly abundant.
On the contrary, I believe that Move, used in Sui or Aptos, is a more advanced language and VM for blockchain in many aspects compared to EVM/Solidity.
However, the codes of non-EVM chains have not yet been sufficiently attacked or validated. Due to their short history and lack of open code, even audit firms lack experience.
DeFi protocols are afraid of being attacked and cannot even open their codes. It's like being afraid of worms and not being able to store food..
I believe this is a very important issue that non-EVM chains need to solve.
Stacks, which is the core DeFi Alex, has been hacked twice in a row and is now in a situation where recovery is difficult.
If the community and time cannot solve the lack of history and experience, standardized code should be cultivated and supplied under the foundation's leadership. Additionally, measures should be put in place to encourage protocols to open their codes, and the foundation should actively assist with audits.
I hope that large DeFi protocols that provide stability against hacking risks will emerge even in non-EVM chains.
3.63K
32
The content on this page is provided by third parties. Unless otherwise stated, OKX is not the author of the cited article(s) and does not claim any copyright in the materials. The content is provided for informational purposes only and does not represent the views of OKX. It is not intended to be an endorsement of any kind and should not be considered investment advice or a solicitation to buy or sell digital assets. To the extent generative AI is utilized to provide summaries or other information, such AI generated content may be inaccurate or inconsistent. Please read the linked article for more details and information. OKX is not responsible for content hosted on third party sites. Digital asset holdings, including stablecoins and NFTs, involve a high degree of risk and can fluctuate greatly. You should carefully consider whether trading or holding digital assets is suitable for you in light of your financial condition.