MOTHER OF GOD!!!! https://www.coindesk.com/business/2026/08/04/bitgo-s-wbtc-move-pushes-layerzero-to-chainlink-tally-near-usd15-billion
You phat booty white bitches better stop playing send that phat ass. Staring ass lmao
>>62575642>>62575650KABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM TWO MORE WEEKS AND STINKIES WILL BE BACK AT $53 INSTEAD OF $8 LMAO
Yes it will all be on Chainlink this isn’t news to anyone. The current method goes like this>get into defi >need reliable bridging>need Chainlink but want money>go with some garbage chink scam to start off>exploit it yourself to “steal” $200m>bag secured>now move to LINK for actual security All of these retarded projects that go with anything besides LINK are doing it to scam hundreds of millions first before actually caring about security
could the market kindly acknowledge that this is happening
>>62575662Why the fuck are you afraid of drug dealers who have to walk everywhere. Strike their ego by calling someone who drives. Lmao
>>62575642are there really still chainlink bagholders on this board in the year 2026
>>62575701The most commited neck rope by now. Or are homeless and on crack heroine
>>62575662here, fren
>>62575710>>62575701September 6th
>>62575741tonight if you please
>>62575741Then more linkies gonna commit mass neckrope? Stream it please.
>>62575642Do you think this could push link to $9? I'm just not sure at this point.
gonna say pthen i'm gonna use the + symbolfollowed by caltogether: p+c
>>62575726nice
>>62575726>>62576892see:>>62575803
>>62575803Turbo retarded fud
>>62576934not an argument
>>62575726>staking mechanicsare they in the room with us right now?
>>62575642This is actually a huge indictment on the general industry. The exploit was due to Kelp Dao's own compliance team using the lowest available setting to save money and make it easier. Nothing failed technologically they just did the equivalent of setting your password to the their mom's maiden name and billions of dollars of capital panicked and left without even forensically knowing what happened.
>>62577214>The exploit was due to Kelp Dao's own compliance team using the lowest available settingWrong.KelpDao used Layerzero's own DVN (Decentralized Verifier NETWORK), and it got hacked.Layerzero is fully responsible for this failure in two ways:1) they call a single oracle node a "network", giving users completely the wrong impression that this was a much more secure decentralized system 2) their own oracle node got hacked
wBTCI bet CL is climbing ranks on this news.Kek baggies
>>62575642*yaaaaaaawn*
>>62577214you need to work on your fud, its giga retarded.Here is what happened in great detail. The April 2026 exploit on Kelp DAO drained approximately $292 million (116,500 rsETH).It exposed a major blind spot in how cross-chain bridges handle off-chain data.The Core Flaw: Kelp DAO used a "1-of-1" Decentralized Verifier Network (DVN) configuration on LayerZero Labs.The Single Bottleneck: This setup required only one entity to validate cross-chain messages before releasing funds.The Disputed Setup: Kelp stated that LayerZero personnel explicitly approved this configuration.A Common Pattern: Nearly 47% of active contracts on LayerZero used this exact same setup at the time.>47% of active contracts on LayerZero used this exact same setup at the time.You're going to see a mass exodus from LayerZero into chainlink soon.
>>62578076Umm none of that is true. In fact, you're a baggie
>>62578076p+c
>>62578076Once chainlink finishes its devops to make chainlink faster, layerzero will suicide.
So what’s this mean?
>>62575642>>62578076Not buying your heavy kike bags you fucking shill, you cur, you absolutely fucking nonce.
>>62575658High IQ. All “hacks” are insiders exploiting vulnerability of their own coin
>>62575642damn that must be really good for the token price
>>62578076Lo That is just a technical description of what I said written by an AI. They chose their security setting to n=2 instead of doing higher because of the reasons I said, which if they had there would be no problem. They used the lowest security setting possible and blamed their shitty opsec on ZRO. The company themselves choose the settings and chose to be lazy, cheap retards. This has nothing to do with ZRO's actual tech used by non-retards.
>>62577377Ackshually, see:>>62583164
>>62583167>>62583164>They chose their security setting to n=297% of Layerzero users used a security setting of n=2 (or even n=1).That's because Layerzero misled everyone by calling each individual node a "network".And there's virtually no difference between using or or two nodes; since the top nodes (Layerzero and Nethermind) are run by the same admins.Plus it was Layerzero's OWN PROPRIETARY node that got hacked.Layerzero was 100% at fault.
>>62575642You crypto niggas still doing that?Move on with your life already.
>>62583221>between using or or two nodes*between using one or two nodes
>>62583221thislayerzero didn't update their documentation after it happened either
>>62583221Again, this is just a restatement of what I said alongside a forced framing that packages it as a tech failure because it was a common practice failure. Their tech works fine and no one using n=3+ settings was remotely vulnerable. This has absolutely ZERO to do with the viability of the tech or its own core strength. A bunch of people being cheap idiots doesn't make the tech vulnerable any more than John Podesta using the password p@ssword makes the US government's nuclear codes vulnerable to an exploit of his personal security practices, even if majority of public servants are similarly predictably retarded just because. ZRO's tech is leaps better than competitors for interop. People leaving its use due to past bad practice is as retarded and lemming brained as people failing because they have zero internal controls and compliance and defaulted to the poor practice. Layer Zero probably should have given better guidance but they more or less provided people with flexibility to use tech however they'd choose and retards chose poorly. Doesn't change how good the tech itself is even if the company were themselves stupid or even negligent.
>>62586216>no one using n=3+ settings was remotely vulnerableThat's less than 3% of their user base.>Their tech works finethen why did their own node get hacked?
>>62586224Again, you are just saying the same thing over and over which doesn't even challenge what I said. Even if one node is hacked anyone using n=3+, which should be a default presumption choice of every compliance department in the world had no vulnerabilty.
>>62586273>which doesn't even challenge what I saidlol
