Scan to download
BTC $78,945.95 -1.70%
ETH $2,224.00 -0.62%
BNB $663.87 -1.64%
XRP $1.43 -2.27%
SOL $88.35 -2.30%
TRX $0.3512 -0.61%
DOGE $0.1115 -1.59%
ADA $0.2589 -2.39%
BCH $423.56 -2.31%
LINK $9.97 -2.49%
HYPE $42.66 -6.38%
AAVE $91.24 -5.12%
SUI $1.08 -6.55%
XLM $0.1533 -3.35%
ZEC $504.74 -6.96%
BTC $78,945.95 -1.70%
ETH $2,224.00 -0.62%
BNB $663.87 -1.64%
XRP $1.43 -2.27%
SOL $88.35 -2.30%
TRX $0.3512 -0.61%
DOGE $0.1115 -1.59%
ADA $0.2589 -2.39%
BCH $423.56 -2.31%
LINK $9.97 -2.49%
HYPE $42.66 -6.38%
AAVE $91.24 -5.12%
SUI $1.08 -6.55%
XLM $0.1533 -3.35%
ZEC $504.74 -6.96%

protocols

After the attack on KelpDAO, multiple protocols have abandoned LayerZero, with $4 billion in assets migrated to Chainlink CCIP

According to CoinDesk, after KelpDAO was attacked resulting in a loss of $292 million, the industry's scrutiny of the security of cross-chain infrastructure continues to heat up, with approximately $4 billion in assets having completed or currently migrating from LayerZero to Chainlink's Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol (CCIP).The DeFi protocol Lombard is the latest project to join this migration trend. The protocol announced it would abandon LayerZero and migrate over $1 billion in Bitcoin-backed assets to Chainlink CCIP, stating that this decision stemmed from a comprehensive internal security review following the April attack incident.Lombard issues two types of Bitcoin-backed tokens—LBTC and BTC.b—and will prioritize the migration of assets on chains such as Solana, Etherlink, Berachain, Corn, and TAC, while terminating the use of LayerZero on Morph and Swell. Lombard stated that the reason for choosing CCIP is its independent node operators, built-in rate limiting mechanisms, and audited infrastructure. Additionally, the protocol will adopt Chainlink's cross-chain token standard to achieve asset cross-chain circulation through a burn-and-mint model.Previously, Kelp DAO, Solv Protocol, Re, and the cryptocurrency exchange Kraken have all completed similar migrations, with these projects collectively transferring approximately $4 billion in assets. Chainlink Labs Chief Business Officer Johann Eid stated, "We are witnessing a continued wave of risk-averse migration within the industry."

Andre Cronje: Nowadays, many DeFi protocols are no longer true DeFi in the real sense, and the industry is debating whether a circuit breaker mechanism should be introduced

Andre Cronje stated in an interview with Cointelegraph that many DeFi protocols today are "no longer truly DeFi" and are more like "profit-driven companies operated by teams," as they generally rely on upgradable contracts, multi-signatures, off-chain infrastructure, and manual operational control.Cronje pointed out that the current industry is still overly focused on smart contract audits while neglecting operational risks that are closer to traditional finance (TradFi). He believes that recent attack incidents are not due to code vulnerabilities but stem from off-chain infrastructure, permission management, and social engineering attacks.The discussion arises from the recent frequent security incidents in DeFi. In April, protocols such as Flying Tulip, Drift Protocol, and Kelp encountered security events, with Drift and Kelp suffering losses of approximately $280 million and $293 million, respectively.In response, Flying Tulip has introduced a "Withdrawal Circuit Breaker," which can delay or queue withdrawal requests when unusually large withdrawals occur, allowing the team about 6 hours to respond. Cronje emphasized that this mechanism does not permanently freeze withdrawals but serves as a layer of protection within the security system.However, Michael Egorov holds a cautious attitude towards this. He stated that the circuit breaker itself could also become a new point of centralized risk. If control permissions fall into the hands of an attacker, the mechanism originally intended to protect the protocol could instead be used to freeze assets or directly transfer funds.Egorov believes that the long-term direction of DeFi should be to minimize human intervention and centralized permissions as much as possible, rather than adding more layers of manual control. "The security of DeFi comes from decentralization, not more human management."

Spark co-founder Sam MacPherson: The next growth phase of DeFi will rely on integrated protocols that can consolidate multi-chain liquidity, possess institutional-level risk control, and have sustainable token economics

At the "Build and Scale in 2026" themed forum recently held by ChainCatcher in Hong Kong, Spark co-founder Sam MacPherson delivered a keynote speech on "The Growth Engine of DeFi," systematically explaining how Spark builds an integrated solution to address the fragmentation and inefficiency of on-chain capital markets by integrating savings, lending, and institutional-level capital allocation.Sam MacPherson pointed out that the current on-chain capital market still faces challenges of severe fragmentation and low capital utilization efficiency. Spark builds its growth engine through three core products: first, the all-chain savings account Spark Savings, which has managed over $2.75 billion in deposits, providing users with a safe and stable income entry; second, the lending protocol SparkLend, which focuses on blue-chip assets and captures value by reducing external protocol commissions and protocol fees; third, institutional lending in collaboration with the Anchorage custodian, seeking risk-adjusted returns between DeFi, CeFi, and traditional finance.He believes that the next phase of DeFi's growth will rely on integrated protocols that can seamlessly integrate multi-chain liquidity, provide institutional-level risk control, and possess sustainable token economic models. Spark is promoting the evolution of DeFi towards a more efficient and robust direction through its product matrix and ecosystem development.

a16z Crypto: The security focus of public chains like BTC and ETH should be on protocols and governance, without blindly switching to quantum-resistant solutions

a16z Crypto published a long article on platform X stating that the timeline for the emergence of quantum computers capable of breaking cryptocurrencies (CRQC) is often exaggerated, and the likelihood of their appearance before 2030 is extremely low. The risk status of different cryptographic primitives varies.Post-quantum encryption needs to be deployed immediately due to the "harvest now, decrypt later" (HNDL) attack. In contrast, post-quantum signatures and zkSNARKs are less susceptible to HNDL attacks; migrating too early could bring risks such as performance overhead, immature implementation, and code vulnerabilities. Therefore, a cautious rather than hasty migration strategy should be adopted.For blockchains, most non-privacy public chains like Bitcoin and Ethereum primarily use digital signatures for transaction authorization, so there is no HNDL risk. The pressure to migrate mainly comes from non-technical challenges such as slow governance, social coordination, and technical logistics.Bitcoin faces unique issues, including its slow governance speed and the existence of millions of quantum-vulnerable tokens worth hundreds of billions of dollars that may be abandoned. In contrast, privacy chains, due to their encryption or concealment of transaction details, do face HNDL attack risks and should transition as soon as possible.a16z Crypto emphasizes that in the coming years, implementation security issues such as code vulnerabilities, side-channel attacks, and fault injection attacks are more urgent and significant security risks compared to the distant threat of quantum computers. Developers should prioritize investment in code audits, fuzz testing, and formal verification.
app_icon
ChainCatcher Building the Web3 world with innovations.