The Munchables platform was exploited for over $63 million in Ethereum (ETH), sparking a significant debate within the cryptocurrency community about the response from Pacman and Blast, the entities behind the platform. While Munchables still holds $33 million in USDB and wrapped Ethereum (wEth), the focus has shifted to whether these funds can be used to compensate depositors, including those like HollanderAdam who lost 6 ETH. The potential solutions include upgrading the bridge to prevent the hacker from moving the stolen $62 million, which could compromise the platform's decentralized ethos, or accepting the loss, which would impact users. The incident has raised questions about the nature of decentralization, with some arguing that intervention to revert the theft would be justified despite potential centralization implications, especially considering Blast was advertised as a centralized L2 with a 3/5 multisig setup. The situation presents a dilemma for the Blast team, as they must choose between a significant monetary loss and potentially abandoning the chain or compromising on decentralization principles.
A path forward for Blast @PacmanBlur could theoretically pause/roll back the chain right now, but there are legal implications to that beyond the reputation stuff. The longer you wait, however, the more drastic the action needed for a solution. It's far better to take swift…
This is an interesting question: definitely unpopular move if they did this, but so is losing $62M of user funds if users on Blast signed on for full decentralization, this would be a violation but if they understood it be a centralized L2 (as it was advertised, 3/5 multisg),… https://t.co/xMRli1raTz
At this point, if @PacmanBlur intervenes, he'd be seen as a hero and users would feel indebted to him. If he doesn't, those same users will feel betrayed. Because technically their funds can be returned and Blast would be making a conscious decision not to. Just because the…