The cryptocurrency exchange Bybit has suffered one of the largest hacks in history, with hackers stealing approximately $1.5 billion worth of Ethereum from a cold wallet. The breach occurred on February 21, 2025, during a routine transfer from a cold wallet to a warm wallet. The attackers used sophisticated techniques, including manipulating smart contract logic and masking the signing interface, to gain unauthorized access to the wallet.
Table of Contents
Key Details:
- Scale of Loss: Around 401,000 ETH was stolen, valued at $1.5 billion, making it the largest cryptocurrency theft to date. This surpasses previous records such as the $620 million Ronin Network hack in 2022.
- Attack Methodology: The hackers exploited vulnerabilities in Bybit’s multi-signature authentication process and used advanced phishing and social engineering tactics. They redirected funds to unidentified wallets and began liquidating them across various platforms.
- Suspected Perpetrators: North Korea’s Lazarus Group is suspected to be behind the attack due to similarities with previous hacks attributed to the group.
- Impact on Bybit: Despite the massive loss, Bybit’s CEO Ben Zhou assured users that all client assets are backed 1:1 and operations remain unaffected. The company has over $20 billion in assets under management and is financially solvent.
- Response Measures: Bybit is working with blockchain forensic experts and authorities to trace the stolen funds. They have also secured bridge loans to cover 80% of the loss if necessary.
This incident highlights ongoing security vulnerabilities in the cryptocurrency industry and raises concerns about safeguarding digital assets against increasingly sophisticated cyberattacks.
About the Possibility of Rolling Back The Ethereum Blockchain (Hard Forking)
The recent $1.5 billion hack of Bybit has sparked intense debate within the cryptocurrency community about the possibility of rolling back the Ethereum blockchain to recover the stolen funds. A blockchain rollback would involve reverting Ethereum to a state prior to the hack, effectively invalidating the malicious transactions. However, this proposal has divided opinions due to its implications for decentralization and immutability.
Key Points of the Debate:
- Support for a Rollback:
- Arthur Hayes, co-founder of BitMEX, has advocated for a rollback, citing Ethereum’s 2016 DAO hack rollback as precedent. He argued that since Ethereum previously compromised on immutability, another rollback could be justified.
- Samson Mow, CEO of JAN3, also supports a rollback, emphasizing its potential to prevent North Korea (linked to the Lazarus Group) from using the stolen funds to finance nuclear weapons programs. He even proposed renaming the current chain if a rollback occurs.
- Proponents argue that recovering $1.5 billion in stolen funds could restore trust in Ethereum’s security and protect users.
- Opposition to a Rollback:
- Critics argue that rolling back the blockchain would undermine Ethereum’s credibility and violate its principle of immutability, which ensures trust in decentralized systems.
- Many believe that Ethereum’s ecosystem is now too complex for a clean rollback. Unlike in 2016, when Ethereum was less interconnected, today’s ecosystem includes bridges, stablecoins, Layer-2 solutions, and real-world assets (RWAs), making a rollback highly disruptive.
- Pseudonymous trader Borovik and Bitcoin advocate Jimmy Song have dismissed the idea as impractical and harmful to Ethereum’s reputation.
- Bybit CEO’s Position:
- Ben Zhou, Bybit’s CEO, has stated that any decision on a rollback should involve community consensus through voting. While he acknowledged exploring all options to recover funds, he emphasized that such a decision cannot rest with one individual.
Historical Context:
The debate draws parallels with Ethereum’s 2016 DAO hack rollback, which resulted in a hard fork splitting Ethereum into two chains: Ethereum (ETH) and Ethereum Classic (ETC). However, critics note that the DAO hack involved only $60 million and had a clearer recovery path compared to the current situation.
Broader Implications:
This discussion has reignited concerns about blockchain governance and the balance between decentralization and intervention during crises. The outcome of this debate could set significant precedents for how future hacks are addressed in decentralized ecosystems.
Comment