1/ On November 4th at 05:45:11 AM UTC, the Moonwell protocol was exploited via a Chainlink oracle malfunction that reported secondary market prices, leading to a $1 million loss.
2/ The Chainlink wrsETH oracle should have reported 1.057; however, it reported 1.7m, a discrepancy of 7 orders of magnitude, enabling the attack.
3/ While we cannot confirm the Chainlink pricing methodology, because of the time proximity to the exploit, it looks like they were dependent on pools with depleted liquidity, post the Balancer exploit.
4/ Interesting to observe: 1) more nodes ≠ more security 2) quality of node operators matters. The screenshot below shows that in this price round, the jury was split; some reported inflated values, while the minority reported the correct price.
5/ Chainlink’s oracle mispriced wrsETH at $5.8B This was 1.7m times the real rate. Clearly missing key guardrails, such as CAPO limiters or liquidity requirements on data sources. A reminder: price feeds are risk systems.
6/ Price Oracle vs. Risk Oracle is a false dichotomy. You can’t segregate price from risk. Asset classes are exploding: - wrapped assets - RWAs - derivatives - etc. As the sophistication of assets grows, “median of unvetted feeds” doesn’t cut it anymore.
7/ What should be the approach for pricing asset-backed collateral? For wrapped assets, pricing usually follows the primary exchange rate. However, Moonwell assumed the use of the Chainlink market oracle, a non-standard choice for a looping asset like wETH.
8/ Using a secondary market rate for a looping collateral is irregular - but it wasn’t the direct cause of the exploit. The real problem is structural.
9/ This exploit highlights the missing link between Oracle design and risk intelligence. Every data feed integrated into a market should undergo the same scrutiny as any collateral: it should be tested, monitored, and bounded by enforceable limits. Oracles are risk systems.
10/ For anyone interested in possible mitigations In this case, there are a few, from the selection of the feed to the implementation of it. @aave has implemented the CAPO framework, which serves as an upper limit for exchange rate oracles to prevent manipulation.
1,918
0
本頁面內容由第三方提供。除非另有說明,OKX 不是所引用文章的作者,也不對此類材料主張任何版權。該內容僅供參考,並不代表 OKX 觀點,不作為任何形式的認可,也不應被視為投資建議或購買或出售數字資產的招攬。在使用生成式人工智能提供摘要或其他信息的情況下,此類人工智能生成的內容可能不準確或不一致。請閱讀鏈接文章,瞭解更多詳情和信息。OKX 不對第三方網站上的內容負責。包含穩定幣、NFTs 等在內的數字資產涉及較高程度的風險,其價值可能會產生較大波動。請根據自身財務狀況,仔細考慮交易或持有數字資產是否適合您。