The Problem With Crypto

Nomad, a bridge that exchanges tokens like AVAX, ETH, EVMOS, Milkomeda and Moonbeam, just recently got hacked to the tune of 190M USD’s. Moonbeam’s smart contract platform from the Polkadot network, whose native token is the GLMR Token, and who looks like the primary target, has gone offline. Announcing “Maintenance mode” thus disabling regular user transactions and smart contract interactions.

These past years right when the pandemic started, up to the present has seen so much security breaches compared to the previous years. It’s hard to believe that these crypto companies did not consider security at all. Weakness upon weakness has been sensationally exposed to the world at a mind boggling price. Both with the funds stolen and the collateral damage it has caused to the image of the crypto industry.

Consider this, according to this article of policyadvice.net, “Cryptocurrency theft has increased by 516% since 2020, with 3.2USD Billion worth of cryptocurrency being stolen.” That said, this increase is indicative of the overall crypto industry weakness. Half-baked solutions presented and launched in so much haste, all to get dubbed as the “First Mover”. A term for market strategist, that essentially means, you get the competitive advantage against future foes. The reason, the industry is where it is at right now.

I’m sure Nomad’s seeders didn’t think that a weakness would be found. But I’ve worked in the tech industry for more than 20 years. Let me tell you something, most tech companies will structure their security plans to address known issues. Industry standards if you must. This provides some sort of a blanket of immunity to the developer/company in case weaknesses are exploited that are not known industry wide or are new. Who suffers when this happens? The client, the client’s clients to be blunt about it. There is no way to ensure 100% security. All any self respecting developer out there can do is to make sure it is done right (according to industry standards) the first time, constantly monitored by a wary after-sales team and to act quickly when things start to go south, to mitigate damage.

This is why I advocate stringent peer reviewed proposals from crypto companies. You put your proposed solution out there for the world to see and let it get gunned down by your peers, investors, stakeholders, etc. This provides an avenue to catch weaknesses early on the dev side. After all, two heads are better than one. The more eyes that look into it, the higher the chances you will be able to secure the product.

Yes, this takes a longer time to develop and yes, the tech industry is a cut throat industry that changes and innovates at a break neck speed. But we are talking about money here, specifically yours. Would you risk putting your money on something that you are not entirely sure of? Especially if it’s a matter of their security or lack thereof? Or would you prefer to invest in something that was well thought out, debated and discussed thoroughly? It’s your call to make.