Initial on-chain reports say an MEV bot captured roughly three quarters of funds a hacker was trying to extract on Base, showing how transaction ordering can turn against an attacker.
Основний текст
Читай текст у контексті й натискай підсвічені слова, щоб відкрити переклад, транскрипцію та дії зі словником.
Vocabulary:6(✓0+0-6)
knownlearningnew
A crypto theft on Base reportedly took an unexpected turn when an automated trading bot captured about 75 percent of the assets the attacker was trying to move. The outcome made the exploit , but it did not necessarily return the money to its original owners.
Initial accounts describe a hacker attempting to convert or withdraw after exploiting a project on Base, an Ethereum layer-two network. An MEV bot detected the profitable opportunity and placed its own transaction in a more favorable position. The bot reportedly kept roughly three quarters of the available value, leaving the attacker with about 25 percent.
MEV stands for . It is the extra value that block builders, validators or automated traders can obtain by choosing the order in which transactions are processed. A bot may pay a higher fee, copy a trade or place transactions immediately before and after another user’s order.
This practice is often described as when a bot acts before a visible transaction to benefit from the price change that transaction will cause. Similar strategies can affect ordinary traders through worse prices or failed transactions. In this case, the person exposed to the tactic was reportedly the exploiter.
The episode also shows why matters on fast blockchain networks. A signed transaction does not always execute at the price or position its sender expects. Bots continuously monitor pending activity and compete for opportunities that can be completed within a single block.
However, describing the result as a recovery would be misleading. Funds captured by an independent bot are not automatically sent back to victims. The bot operator’s identity and intentions may be unknown, and a later return would require separate evidence.
The reported 75 percent figure should also be treated as preliminary. A complete still needs to identify the affected protocol, wallet addresses and transaction sequence. Those details were not independently confirmed when this lesson was prepared. What the available account does illustrate is a sharp irony: infrastructure commonly criticized for extracting value from users may also extract value from someone carrying out an exploit.
Вправи
Перевірте розуміння тексту, ключову лексику та зміст уроку після читання.
Після перегляду визнач, чи правильне твердження
Визнач, чи правдиві твердження.
Щоб виконувати завдання, увійдіть в акаунт.
Вибери правильний варіант відповіді
Вибери правильну відповідь.
Щоб виконувати завдання, увійдіть в акаунт.
Обговорення
щоб коментувати, лайкати відповіді та скаржитися на коментарі.
SecondFi exploit losses may top $20M, SlowMist warns
Обговорення
щоб коментувати, лайкати відповіді та скаржитися на коментарі.