Arcus lost approximately 2.234 million USDG due to an accounting vulnerability.
According to PANews, at 11:07 Beijing time on November 10, a newly created account exploited a vulnerability in how Arcus processed transfers between user subaccounts, falsely recording a balance higher than the actual amount held and requesting a withdrawal. Arcus said it detected and fixed the issue within an hour, covering the entire shortfall from its treasury. User balances were unaffected. Another $3 million in withdrawal requests was blocked by the cross-chain bridge’s rate limit; the funds were not paid out, and the requests have been canceled.
· The platform confirmed that transactions and withdrawals have returned to normal.
· The statement that “user balances were unaffected” comes from Arcus’s disclosure; the amount withdrawn on-chain and the amount covered by the treasury both use figures reported by PANews.
Which concerns you more: the cross-chain bridge’s rate-limit safeguard or the accounting checks for subaccount transfers?
$USDG
According to PANews, at 11:07 Beijing time on November 10, a newly created account exploited a vulnerability in how Arcus processed transfers between user subaccounts, falsely recording a balance higher than the actual amount held and requesting a withdrawal. Arcus said it detected and fixed the issue within an hour, covering the entire shortfall from its treasury. User balances were unaffected. Another $3 million in withdrawal requests was blocked by the cross-chain bridge’s rate limit; the funds were not paid out, and the requests have been canceled.
· The platform confirmed that transactions and withdrawals have returned to normal.
· The statement that “user balances were unaffected” comes from Arcus’s disclosure; the amount withdrawn on-chain and the amount covered by the treasury both use figures reported by PANews.
Which concerns you more: the cross-chain bridge’s rate-limit safeguard or the accounting checks for subaccount transfers?
$USDG
