The recent lending reentrancy heist that impacted a slew of cryptos, including Curve Finance and others, is beginning to see an unconventional resolution. As a solution to this crypto-crisis, victims of the incursion have proposed an interesting strategy – a 10% bounty in return for the rest of the usurped cryptocurrency. An intriguing tactic indeed, the offer posits the hackers with a paradox of the prodigy sort, being potentially a win-win for both the hackers and the victims.
“We want to underline that there will be no further pursuit, no underlying threat of legal entanglements, or otherwise,” stated the affected triad that comprised of Curve, Metronome, and Alchemix. The message had been conveyed via an on-chain communication directed to an Ethereum address associated with the hackers. However, they weren’t provided with an indefinite window to make this decision, creating an added layer of tense, ticking-clock intrigue.
The trio had fixed a deadline of August 6 at 0800 UTC, a significant factor here, as it denotes what comes after the prescribed date, morphs the bounty into a different type of incentive. This incentive, unlike the aforementioned one, wilts the prospect of a worry-free retreat for the hackers. In fact, it promises just the opposite.
As per the terms set out, the bounty, post the expiring window, transfigures into an impetus for an entirely different demographic – not the hackers, but the whistleblowers. An incentive to act as the catalyst in a high octane, cryptoverse version of ‘cat and mouse’.
“We are committed to following every lead, using every resource at our disposal and exhausting every possibility. And we will, by hook or crook, execute the full measure of the law,” the warning rings out loud and clear, amplifying the seriousness of the trio’s intent to salvage their assets.
Overall, the situation unfolds a thought-provoking question on the ethical crossroads faced by hackers. On one hand, they’re granted immunity and rewarded for returning stolen assets, thereby introducing a grey area of morality into the typically black-and-white world of crypto-sphere transgressions. On the other, it raises a pertinent question about the overall effectiveness of such an approach. Can this practice deter future crypto wrongdoings or it’s only paving the way for more audacious acts? These conflicting elements cast a suspenseful haze over the future of blockchain security.
Source: Coindesk
