@mohammedhersi i still dont understand how europeans colonised Africa with such technologia 🤣🤣🤣🤣
English
0x1Nonce҉
137 posts
0x1Nonce҉
@NonceBender
Blockchain Security Researcher 🔗 | Web3 💻 | Smart Contracts ⚙️ | Trader 📈 (FX & Crypto)
Katılım Şubat 2025
336 Takip Edilen15 Takipçiler
Africa is full of surpsises
Ugandan police arrested a man for witchcraft, took him to court, and he responded by inviting bees to the court.
Everyone was attacked by the bees. He didn’t get a single sting.
Interesting to see a man running around with a fire 🔥 extinguisher.
Earth is hard , best such guys are left in peace.
English
0x1Nonce҉ retweetledi
0x1Nonce҉ retweetledi
Building Sushi in Public — Episode 5 out now on YouTube
English
Why don't animals' teeth decay even though they don't brush them?
English
0x1Nonce҉ retweetledi
nobody accidentally swaps $50M into a pool with $36K of liquidity lol. fresh wallet, $50.4M from Binance, zero slippage protection, routed through the jankiest Sushiswap path possible. and then an MEV bot just happens to flash borrow $29M from Morpho in the same block and pocket $9.9M?
cmon. 0xngmi called this exact play a year ago - construct a deliberately terrible swap, let a friendly bot extract the value, dirty money comes out the other side as "legit MEV profit."
$154K per AAVE isn't a fat finger. it's a laundering fee
Watcher.Guru@WatcherGuru
JUST IN: Trader accidentally swaps $50 million $USDT for $36,000 $AAVE on Ethereum.
English
@StaniKulechov Wild thought:
what if the trader and the bot operator are the same entity and this is just the most expensive marketing campaign in crypto history?
English
Earlier today, a user attempted to buy AAVE using $50M USDT through the Aave interface.
Given the unusually large size of the single order, the Aave interface, like most trading interfaces, warned the user about extraordinary slippage and required confirmation via a checkbox. The user confirmed the warning on their mobile device and proceeded with the swap, accepting the high slippage, which ultimately resulted in receiving only 324 AAVE in return.
The transaction could not be moved forward without the user explicitly accepting the risk through the confirmation checkbox.
The CoW Swap routers functioned as intended, and the integration followed standard industry practices. However, while the user was able to proceed with the swap, the final outcome was clearly far from optimal.
Events like this do occur in DeFi, but the scale of this transaction was significantly larger than what is typically seen in the space.
We sympathize with the user and will try to make a contact with the user and we will return $600K in fees collected from the transaction.
The key takeaway is that while DeFi should remain open and permissionless, allowing users to perform transactions freely, there are additional guardrails the industry can build to better protect users. Our team will be investigating ways to improve these safeguards going forward.
English
correct me if I'm wrong but this seems like the largest ever single-block builder profit in ethereum history, ~$33m to titan
it also may be one of the largest MEV block rewards ever on eth, a 568 ETH proposer payment which falls just behind the SVB USDC depeg (had a 692 ETH payment), 2023 sushiswap whitehat hack (689 ETH), and 2023 curve whitehat hack (584 ETH)
others already commented on the original issues with the order (illiquid route + insane $155k AAVE limit price), but here's where the $50m went:
- $36k to the user's cowswap order (331 AAVE)
- $619k cowswap solver fee
- ~$9.9m to the MEV bot that backran the 17,957 ETH -> 331 AAVE swap (backrun was 128 AAVE -> 17,959 ETH)
- another ~$2.6m to the same MEV bot from backrunning the $50m USDT -> $37m WETH swap over multiple txs
- ~$34.3m fee to titan from the MEV bot (includes $1.2m to lido as the block proposer)
- ~$3.5m in dex swap fees + residual smaller arb txs
insane payday for titan, who sent their profits to coinbase, and this single MEV bot took the majority of the arbs in both the illiquid AAVE/WETH pool and the $13m slippage swap in the main USDT/WETH pool
deebeez@deeberiroz
Poor fellow swapped $50m -> $35k on eth mainnet 😭😭😭 etherscan.io/tx/0x9fa9feab3…
English
0x1Nonce҉ retweetledi
@SpecterAnalyst This is why the “Swap Anyway” button is terrifying.
English
A victim lost $50.3M after swapping 50.4M aUSDT for 327 aAAVE (~$35.9K).
The victim received $50.9M USDC and $50.4M USDT from Binance on February 20 to two wallets:
0xcaE19A19128C4Aabbabc2334613C6b7AE75b1111
0x98B9D979C33dD7284C854909BCC09b51FBF97Ac8
About 2 hours ago, the victim supplied the USDT and USDC and received aUSDT and aUSDC.
Wallet 0x98B then attempted to swap 50.4M aUSDT for aAAVE via CoW Protocol but only received 327 aAAVE (~$35.9K), likely due to extremely low liquidity for that pair.
It is worth noting that the CoW Protocol UI shows a warning for such transactions and suggests using TWAP instead.
Stay smart.
English
@cz_binance Crypto rule:
If your trade is bigger than the pool,
you ARE the pool.
English
Sad to see this. Liquidity is the best user protection.
K A L E O@CryptoKaleo
20 days ago a fresh wallet received $50.4M USDT from Binance. Just a bit ago, they swapped the entire amount for 327 AAVE worth ~$36K routed through CoW Protocol via Sushiswap. They paid $154K per AAVE. In the same block, an MEV bot immediately flash borrowed $29M WETH from Morpho, bought AAVE via Bancor @ fair value, and dumped the AAVE into the Sushiswap pool, repayed the flash loan, and pocketed $9.9M.
English
@PatrickAlphaC Crypto rule:
If your trade is bigger than the pool,
you ARE the pool.
English
This is why, as of today, I still recommend only developers use DeFi.
Signing transactions is too difficult - I cannot in good faith recommend someone use a tool that one can accidentally lose 50 million dollars
Stani@StaniKulechov
Earlier today, a user attempted to buy AAVE using $50M USDT through the Aave interface. Given the unusually large size of the single order, the Aave interface, like most trading interfaces, warned the user about extraordinary slippage and required confirmation via a checkbox. The user confirmed the warning on their mobile device and proceeded with the swap, accepting the high slippage, which ultimately resulted in receiving only 324 AAVE in return. The transaction could not be moved forward without the user explicitly accepting the risk through the confirmation checkbox. The CoW Swap routers functioned as intended, and the integration followed standard industry practices. However, while the user was able to proceed with the swap, the final outcome was clearly far from optimal. Events like this do occur in DeFi, but the scale of this transaction was significantly larger than what is typically seen in the space. We sympathize with the user and will try to make a contact with the user and we will return $600K in fees collected from the transaction. The key takeaway is that while DeFi should remain open and permissionless, allowing users to perform transactions freely, there are additional guardrails the industry can build to better protect users. Our team will be investigating ways to improve these safeguards going forward.
English
Everyone focused on why did the AAVE buyer have $50m on his phone
No one asking why someone w/ $500m in mobile hot wallets was trying to buy 3% of the entire AAVE supply in a single public txn
English