EIP-7281 will allow token issuers to list official bridges and limit the rate at which they can mint tokens, potentially limiting losses from bridge hacks.
Čítaj viac
While a date for mainnet wasn’t announced, the Base team said it’s now fulfilled 4 out of 5 of their criteria for launch.
Čítaj viac
New research from blockchain analytics and crypto compliance firm Elliptic has revealed the extent to which cross-chain bridges and decentralized exchanges (DEXs) have removed barriers for cybercriminals.In an Oct. 4 report titled “The state of cross-chain crime,” Elliptic researchers Eray Arda Akartuna and Thibaud Madelin took a deep dive into what they described as “the new frontier of crypto laundering.” The report summarized that the free flow of capital between crypto assets is now more unhindered due to the emergence of new technologies such as bridges and DEXs.Cybercriminals have been using cross-chain bridges, DEXs, and coin swaps to obfuscate at least $4 billion worth of illicit crypto proceeds since the beginning of 2020, it reported. Around a third of all stolen crypto, or roughly $1.2 billion, from the incidents surveyed, was swapped using decentralized exchanges.Delving further into the details, the report noted that more than half of the illicit funds it identified were swapped directly through two DEXs — Curve and Uniswap, with the 1inch aggregator protocol coming a close third.A similar amount (around $1.2 billion) has been laundered using coin swap services which allow users to swap assets within and across different networks without having an account.“Many are advertised on Russian cybercrime forums and cater almost exclusively to a criminal audience,” it noted.Sanctioned entities are increasingly turning to such technologies in order to move funds and carry out cyber-attacks, according to Elliptic.“Wallets connected to groups eventually sanctioned by the United States – including those used by North Korea to perpetrate multi-million-dollar cyberattacks – have laundered more than $1.8 billion through such techniques.”In a June report on virtual asset risks, global money laundering, and terrorist financing watchdog, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), also fingered cross-chain bridges and “chain hopping” as a high risk.Related: $2B in crypto stolen from cross-chain bridges this year: ChainalysisThe Ren bridge was mentioned as a top choice for crypto laundering with the vast majority of illicit assets, or more than $540 million, passing through it. “Ren has become particularly popular with those seeking to launder the proceeds of theft,” it said.One potential solution to mitigate crypto theft was proposed by Stanford researchers last month. It involves an opt-in token standard called ERC-20R that provides the option to reverse a transaction within a set time period.
Čítaj viac
Last week, Vitalik Buterin, Ethereum (ETH)’s co-founder, voiced his disapproval regarding the emergence of cross-chain bridges, citing security vulnerabilities due to their interdependency. In the days that followed, however, developers working on cross-chain technologies largely dismissed his skepticism. In a statement to Cointelegraph, Kadan Stadelmann, chief technology officer of atomic swap blockchain Komodo, responded to Vitalik’s critique:”What we ultimately need is true decentralization. For example, instead of relying on one or two trusted bridges that have a single point of failure, it would be better to work towards a future where we have numerous bridges that are secure, trustless and censorship-resistant.”Erik Ashdown, head of ecosystem growth at data analytics and blockchain indexer Covalent, concurred:Vitalik is a smart cookie who’s clearly done his thinking about the state of bridges. However, his saying that bridges are a bad idea and won’t work is the equivalent of the Bitcoin community in 2015 saying Ethereum and smart contracts were a bad idea.Stadelmann further reiterated that “cross-chain interoperability is the future” and that both multi-chain ecosystem networks like Polkadot (DOT) and Cosmos (ATOM), as well as atomic decentralized exchanges, could disrupt the economic size of Ethereum. In supporting the claim, Stadelmann cites expensive gas fees on the blockchain as to why users would prefer alternatives.Nevertheless, there are unresolved issues surrounding cross-chain blockchains. Ashdown cites one example of the composability of a smart contract, where sending a token across one bridge will not have the same contract address if it crosses from another bridge. This means that anyone else sending a token across another bridge will not be able to interact with the original tokens sent from the main bridge.
Čítaj viac
