the figures referenced in the post are entirely misleading. There was no impact realized from this issue. Zero user funds were affected and zero addresses were compromised. My response: Are you suggesting I should have actually exploited the bug and caused real damage before coming to talk to you? For the stated vulnerability to work in practice, it would require execution of several suspicious transactions that would have an extraordinarily limited impact. My response: You should know better than anyone that on a Cosmos-based chain, a single transaction can pack multiple messages. Just one transaction is more than enough to completely drain multiple whale accounts. Injective has dynamic rate limiting functionalities which are applied automatically based on our live monitoring systems. This functionality has been live on mainnet since last year and is publicly available in our code base. My response: First, this has nothing to do with the vulnerability itself. Rate limiting doesn't stop attackers from stealing funds. It only slows them down when they try to bridge those funds over to Ethereum. Second, when I submitted my report, the mainnet configuration for this feature was not set. In other words, this feature wasn't even turned on! In addition to all of the above, this report was reviewed against the clearly defined terms of our Immunefi program. Based on those terms, issues such as those raised in this report that DO NOT impact block production or consensus are categorized outside of the Blockchain/DLT tier and carry a maximum payout of $50,000. My response: First, Immunefi has always put the impact of direct fund theft at the very top of its priority list. This is a fact that everyone knows. Second, you changed your bug bounty page after I submitted my report. Here’s the snapshot from November 8, 2025: web.archive.org/web/2025110816… . And now, there’s an extra line added to your bug bounty page: “IMPORTANT: Within the Assets in Scope table, the injective-core folder is listed for both Blockchain/DLT and Web/App due to overlap between the two within the same folder. However, for a report to be categorized as Blockchain/DLT, the resulting impact has to be directly involved with the block production process or with consensus failures. All reports not dealing directly with either of these are to be categorized as Web/App.” I’d really like to know when this line was added. and do you really value chain consensus more than users' funds? We remain committed to fair, transparent, and consistent handling of all reports, and to maintaining the highest standards of security for the ecosystem. Injective has done so since its mainnet inception in 2021 and will continue to do so in perpetuity, always putting builders and security first. My response: You never even replied to my messages, and now you’re blaming me for not requesting mediation? I can post the original report if you agree. I left many messages, but you haven't replied to a single one. ---------- Finally: Stop making excuses from every angle and trying to use technical jargon to confuse people who aren't developers. That doesn’t work anymore these days. Anyone can just ask an AI to fact-check what both of us are saying. I have no ill intentions toward your project. All I'm asking is for you to be honest and handle this transparently.
