Flow Security Incident Review: Type Confusion Vulnerability in Cadence Identified as Key Factor

By: theblockbeats.news|2026/01/07 09:16:11

BlockBeats News, January 7th, Folw released an attack event retrospective report, stating that the attacker exploited a Flow Network vulnerability to mint fake tokens, stealing approximately $3.9 million through a bridging attack. This attack did not access or leak any existing user balances. The attack duplicated assets but did not touch legitimately held assets, with the majority of the fake assets either stored on-chain before liquidation or frozen by exchange partners. Network validators have approved a decentralized governance action authorizing the permanent destruction of all fake assets. The network resumed operation on December 29th, is currently running smoothly, and all transaction history has been preserved.

The attacker sequentially deployed over 40 malicious smart contracts, leveraging a three-stage attack chain: 1) bypassing attachment import verification; 2) circumventing defense checks of built-in types; 3) exploiting a contract initializer semantic vulnerability. The root cause was a type confusion vulnerability in the Cadence runtime (v1.8.8), which has now been patched (v1.8.9 and higher versions). This vulnerability allowed the attacker to disguise protected assets (which should not be duplicable) as standard data structures (which are duplicable), bypassing runtime security checks and enabling token minting.

In addition to moving assets out of Flow, the attacker also attempted to deposit fake FLOW on several centralized exchanges, but due to the abnormal transaction volume and internal anti-money laundering protocols, multiple exchanges froze the deposit upon receipt. Approximately 50% of the fake FLOW deposits have been returned and destroyed by cooperating exchanges (such as OKX, Gate, MEXC), while the foundation continues to actively coordinate with other exchange platforms.

Looking at revenue alone (Note: Lighter's revenue has not been market-validated for a year like Hyperliquid), by simply annualizing based on the revenue of the past month, Lighter's annualized revenue could reach 250 million USD. This means that Lighter's Price-to-Sales ratio (market cap/revenue) multiple is only 2.5 times, far lower than Hyperliquid's 7.6 times, ridiculously cheap.

Take a closer look at a closer competitor, Aster. Aster's TVL is comparable to Lighter's, with an Open Interest (OI) of about one billion more than Lighter's. However, its FDV reaches up to 7 billion, with a circulating market cap of around 2 billion. In contrast, Lighter's trading price is only one-third of Aster's.

Ask yourself: Even considering Aster's Binance/CZ halo, is Lighter's price at only one-third of Aster's reasonable? In my opinion, based on the current valuation, Lighter is severely undervalued fundamentally.

Looking at the fundamentals, you will find that only two tokens can sustain a high revenue multiple in the long run: Hyperliquid and DYDX. Why? The former has the most transparent buyback mechanism, while the latter has stood the test of time in this industry. Unlike other listed Perp Dexes, Lighter does not have a top-tier influencer like CZ or liquidity support from Coinbase to artificially pump, nor does it face the dilemma of "lack of real users" like other competitors.

Additionally, it is important to note that the over-the-counter market (SOTC) usually carries a discount because buyers bear default risks (if the opening price is twice as high as the OTC transaction price, sellers have an incentive to default), which causes people not to offer high prices in OTC but to wait and see the actual listing performance.

I choose to annualize based on the revenue of the last month for a reason: in the crypto world, everyone only has a 7-second memory, and no one has the ability to see clearly or trade for the future a year later. Therefore, only the immediate revenue of the last month is the most important indicator.

Funds Flow

The reason why Hyperliquid was able to break out on an independent trend is that many early LPs did not believe in its model. This led to those sharp-sighted retail investors sweeping all the chips and then selling to the belated buyers at a high price.

In conversations with a large number of VCs over the past few months, I have noticed a phenomenon: except for Paradigm, almost everyone missed out on Hyperliquid. This means that every VC with a liquidity fund (the vast majority of them do) will try to catch the next $HYPE.

Who is the next Hyperliquid? It's quite simple; just do a "pattern matching" between Lighter's storyline and Hyperliquid, and you'll find it's Lighter.

Looking at the token distribution, you will find: the large holders of Hyperliquid have also become the large holders and deep users of Lighter. The secret to wealth for this group of people is simple: Hold

errorToken Buyback

Passive spot buying is the only thing that can support the coin price. BTC has MicroStrategy's Saylor, ETH has Tom Lee, but for altcoins, the market only recognizes income buybacks. If you want to keep the price firm, you need passive buying in the form of buybacks. Hyperliquid understands this well.

Lighter is essentially a replica of Hyperliquid. Founder Vlad has made it clear that they will conduct buybacks. While you can't expect them to buy back 97% of the tokens, buying back 30% or 50% is reasonable. As long as there is an eight-figure (tens of millions) passive buy, this is attractive enough.

Note: In their $68 million financing (mainly for the insurance fund), the team has allocated some funds for token buybacks at TGE. This is similar to the early Hyperliquid's $75 million spot buy.

Deep Integration with Robinhood

Vlad Tenev (Robinhood's Vlad1) previously interned at Addepar for Vlad (Vlad2) from Lighter, and that's how they met. Robinhood is an investor in Lighter, and Vlad1 is also an advisor to Lighter.

There have been numerous rumors in the industry about using Lighter on Robinhood's chain. Lighter's goal is composability and will be integrated into Ethereum L1, ultimately achieving collateralized LLP token lending. This composability aligns with Robinhood's vision of "tokenizing everything" and putting everything on-chain.

While this is speculation, I support the argument that Robinhood will acquire a significant stake in Lighter (whether through tokens or equity). Given the similarity of their Payment for Order Flow (PFOF) models, I speculate that once Robinhood holds Lighter shares, it will redirect a significant portion of its traffic to Lighter. This will further strengthen this narrative.

RWA Trading

Although not limited to Lighter, RWA contract trading has proven to be a key early product-market fit. Data shows that Lighter's daily trading volume for all RWA products is $517 million, with an open interest (OI) of $271 million. Compared to Hyperliquid, Lighter is quickly catching up and even surpassing.

One key distinction is that Lighter's RWA service is not provided by a third party in the ecosystem, but rather self-operated. This makes coordination and onboarding of new assets smoother and faster. Additionally, Lighter's majority of trading volume comes from its FX contract, while Hyperliquid is mainly index contracts (80%). Ultimately, this will evolve into a pure competition of liquidity and order book depth to vie for users.

Hyperliquid's First True Competitor

The derivative market is growing rapidly, and despite a loyal fan base on Twitter shouting "Hyperliquid is the only one," the market is large enough to accommodate multiple top players. Robinhood has also opened up futures trading, as futures have a strong foothold in the crypto space and are indeed a superior trading method compared to options.

Solving the full collateral issue is the most critical challenge that Hyperliquid has outsourced to Flood and Fullstack Trade. To my knowledge, Flood is at least 6 months away from solving this problem. Lighter's larger team is more likely to tackle this challenge. Yes, Hyperliquid has a first-mover advantage, but if Lighter can swiftly integrate this feature, they may well take a slice of their cake.

Privacy

While Hyperliquid has built a cult-like community culture, its architecture has a fatal flaw for whales: complete transparency.

On Hyperliquid, leaderboards and on-chain data broadcast every large position, entry price, and liquidation point to the world. This turns trading into a PvP arena where predatory players like me can specifically hunt whales' liquidation orders and front-run large funds. Leveraging liquidation data to predict short-term tops and bottoms is traceable, and I know many traders continue to profit through this strategy.

Lighter positions itself as the antidote to this risk. By obfuscating trading flows and shielding position data, its operation is more akin to an on-chain dark pool rather than a standard DEX. For "smart money" and large funds, anonymity is not just a feature—it is a necessity. If you have a significant amount of funds, you absolutely cannot trade in a place that directly exposes your hand and liquidation point to the counterparty. As DeFi matures, venues that can protect user alpha will inevitably attract the largest flows of funds.