Celsius may have lost 900 BTC ($50 million) to the Badger DAO hack
작성자 정보
- 레딧 작성
- 작성일
컨텐츠 정보
- 467 조회
- 0 추천
- 목록
본문
I just came across this twitter thread saying Celsius lost 900 BTC to the Badger DAO hack
Recently Badger DAO (a defi protocol Celsius might have been using) was hacked and $120 million was stolen.
The hackers managed to gain access to the website and add a malicious script that drained funds from users' wallets.
The user who lost the most money to the hack was this address (0x534) who lost 896 wBTC. It is believed that this address is owned by Celsius since it has interacted with other addresses known to be owned by them.
Here's why it's believed that that address was owned by Celsius.
TLDR: 0x534 (the address who lost 896 BTC) seems to be connected to a lot of addresses connected to Celsius.
0x534 regularly sends big amounts of funds to another address (0xdb3). You can see a transaction like that here, where 0x534 sent 125 ETH to 0xdb3. It also received funds from 0xdb3 frequently,
0xdb3 has a $67 million balance, of which $40 million is in CEL
0xdb3 is also related to another address (0x4f6) that's owned by Celsius (tagged as Celsius Network Wallet 5 on Etherscan).
These two addresses interact with each other frequently, you can see 0xdb3 and 0x476 sending large amounts of funds to each other repeatedly. (0xdb3 sends 514k BUSD to 0x4f6 , 0x4f6 sends 6 million USDT to 0xdb3)
0x534 also sends funds to another address (0xef2).
0xef2 is also related 0x4f6 (Celsius Wallet 5) . You can see 0xef2 frequently receiving funds from 0x4f6. (0x4f6 sends 6 million USDT to 0xed2)
0x534 also interacts with another address (0x5fa) (0x534 sends $2.2 million in CRV to 0x5fa)
And 0x5fa also interacts with 0xdb3 and 0xef2 (0x5fa sends $50k in CRV to 0xdb3, 0xef2 sends $700 in ANKR to 0x5fa)
All this means that there's a high chance that the address who lost 900 BTC was owned by Celsius. Celsius has not confirmed anything yet, so this is all speculation for now, so we don't know for sure if Celsius was affected or not.
[link][comments]
관련자료
-
링크