Connect with us

Blockchain

Experts Warn of Vulnerabilities about Ethereum Blockchain Security 

Published

on

Experts warn of vulnerabilities about Ethereum blockchain security, raising concerns about the safety of billions of dollars in cryptocurrency and the integrity of decentralized applications built on the platform.

A recent poll by Galaxy Digital researcher Christine Kim, on the social network “X” – former Twitter, reveals significant misconceptions within the Ethereum community about how much staked Ethereum (ETH) is necessary to secure the network.

Vulnerabilities of Ethereum: Less Staked ETH Needed for Attack Than Many Believe

Respondents displayed the following beliefs about Ethereum’s security:

  • 44.9% believed that securing Ethereum requires 100% of all ETH staked, amounting to $110 billion, 31.4 million ETH.
  • 20.4% thought 66.6% of staked ETH was sufficient, equivalent to $73.4 billion, 20.9 million ETH.
  • 34.7% felt that only 33.3% of staked ETH, or $36.7 billion, 10.4 million ETH, was required for security.

Addressing these misconceptions, Christine Kim emphasized the actual vulnerabilities of Ethereum’s Proof-of-Stake (PoS) mechanism in a detailed follow-up. She highlighted that an attacker can disrupt finality with 33% of the total stake, prolong a chain split with 50%, and double spend with 66% of the total stake.

Kim added that security primarily depends on the network’s ability to penalize stakers by burning large amounts of the locked value. The worse the attack, the more value stakers stand to lose. 

It is crucial to comprehend the true significance of the situation, with a pun intended. Further elaboration from the Ethereum Foundation explains the technical underpinnings of these vulnerabilities. 

An article by the foundation states that attackers using >= 33% of the total stake make all attacks mentioned more likely to succeed. 

If the amount exceeds this limit, it would be a more precise and concise way of getting the same meaning so they can prevent the chain from finalizing without having to control the actions of the other validators.

For attacks involving 34% of the total stake, the article detailed a possible scenario of “double finality” where an attacker can manipulate the validation of two conflicting blockchain forks at the same time. This kind of attack is characterized by significant coordination and control over the timing of messages within the network, posing a high risk due to the potential slashing of the attacker’s entire staked amount.

Higher levels of controlled staking, such as 50% and 66%, increase the potential for more severe disruptions, including sustained chain splits and transaction censorship or reversal. 

The foundation’s article elaborates that at >50% of the total stake, the attacker could dominate the fork choice algorithm, enabling them to censor certain transactions, do short-range reorgs, and extract maximum MEV by reordering blocks in their favor.

Ethereum Blockchain Security: The Power of Community Consensus

To protect the Ethereum network from security risks, it has an “inactivity leak” mechanism that gradually reduces the stake of inactive or malicious validators. Additionally, if the chain splits, the Ethereum community uses social consensus to decide which chain to follow.

These revelations underscore the importance of community awareness and technical safeguards in maintaining the security and integrity of the Ethereum network. While Ethereum’s PoS system offers several security advantages, it also requires vigilant monitoring and readiness to act against potential attacks.

As the Ethereum staking landscape evolves, several key trends have emerged, reshaping how stakeholders interact and benefit from the staking process.

The Rise of Re-staking and the Challengers to Lido’s Dominance

Tom Wan, researcher at 21.co, highlighted these trends in a recent post:

  • Increase in Re-staking Popularity: Since 2024, there has been a significant shift towards re-staking in the Ethereum ecosystem. 
  • Re-staking contributions have grown from 10% to 60% of the total staked ETH. Eigenlayer, in particular, has risen to prominence as the second-largest DeFi protocol on Ethereum, holding a $15 billion Total Value Locked (TVL), which represents 13% of all staked ETH.
  • The decline in Lido’s Market Share: The rise of liquid restaking protocols has noticeably impacted Lido’s dominance in the Ethereum staking market. Lido’s share has fallen below 30%, influenced by the growth of new platforms like Etherfi, which has become the second-largest withdrawer of stETH since 2024, totaling withdrawals of 108k stETH.
  • Centralized Exchange (CEX) Staking Decline: The prevalence of centralized exchanges in ETH staking has decreased from 29.7% to 25.8% since 2024. Kiln Finance recently surpassed Binance to become the third-largest ETH staking entity. Ether.fi is gaining market share and is positioned to challenge Binance’s former dominance shortly.

In conclusion, the Ethereum community must be aware of the actual vulnerabilities of the blockchain’s security and take necessary measures to protect the network. 

The trend towards re-staking, decline in Lido’s market share, and centralized exchange staking decline are significant developments that will shape the future of Ethereum’s staking landscape.

Continue Reading

Blockchain

TT Chain Positions Itself as an RWA-Focused Blockchain Targeting Enterprise Supply-Chain Adoption

Published

on

TT Chain (TT) is emerging as a blockchain project focused on real-world asset infrastructure, supply-chain traceability, and enterprise-grade transparency solutions. The network’s design centers on enabling organizations to verify product origins, monitor logistics, and ensure compliance using immutable on-chain data — a positioning that aligns with the growing institutional appetite for blockchain-based audit systems.

Enterprise-Focused Architecture

TT Chain promotes itself as a purpose-built ledger for supply-chain activity. Its framework allows manufacturers, logistics operators, and retailers to record each stage of a product’s lifecycle on-chain, from raw material sourcing to final delivery. This structure is intended to reduce fraud, strengthen authentication processes, and build trust between stakeholders across complex value chains.

Several early use cases highlight the platform’s potential applications, including agricultural tracing, sustainable product verification, and industrial logistics coordination. These examples illustrate TT Chain’s attempt to bridge blockchain technology with day-to-day operational requirements inside physical industries.

Token Model and Supply Structure

The TT token functions as the native asset for the network. Public supply data indicates a capped supply of 210 million TT, with a significantly smaller portion currently identified as the active supply. Circulating supply remains unreported, suggesting that liquidity is constrained or subject to controlled release schedules.

Such supply conditions may influence market behavior, particularly during early ecosystem development, when token distribution and unlock pacing play a large role in user participation and exchange liquidity.

Market Positioning and Recent Performance

TT trades in a niche segment of the market, with price activity showing low-volume movements reflective of early-stage liquidity. Despite modest trading activity, the project continues to gain visibility due to its distinct enterprise-first focus — a narrative increasingly resonant in sectors exploring real-world asset tokenization.

RWA Momentum and Competitive Landscape

The broader blockchain industry is seeing accelerated interest in real-world asset systems, especially in logistics, sustainability, and compliance-oriented workflows. TT Chain aims to position itself within this rising category by offering a structured environment for data integrity and provenance tracking.

Its success will depend on measurable enterprise adoption, clarity around tokenomics, and the network’s ability to scale with business-grade performance needs.

Outlook

With a clearly defined target audience and a roadmap centered on real-world integration, TT Chain is working to differentiate itself from generalized L1 ecosystems. Whether it secures meaningful traction will be determined by its technological delivery, enterprise partnerships, and transparency around token circulation.

Continue Reading

Blockchain

Zcash Proposes Dynamic Fee Model to Protect Users Amid Rising Network Costs

Published

on

Zcash developers have introduced a new proposal to overhaul the network’s fee structure, aiming to address rising costs and prevent users from being priced out during periods of high demand. The announcement, which mirrors the principles behind Ethereum’s EIP-1559 upgrade, sparked immediate market interest—sending ZEC up by roughly 12% within hours.

A Dynamic Fee Model Focused on User Protection

The proposal, introduced by core contributors from the Electric Coin Company (ECC) and the Zcash Foundation (ZF), outlines a dynamic mechanism that adjusts fees in response to network congestion. By linking fees to real-time demand, Zcash aims to reduce the impact of speculative usage and sudden spikes that can erode network accessibility.

The model may also include a fee-burn component, similar to Ethereum’s EIP-1559, which permanently destroys a portion of fees. This approach not only helps counteract volatile fee environments but may also contribute to greater long-term economic sustainability.

Zooko Wilcox-O’Hearn, Zcash Founder and former ECC CEO, emphasized the motivation behind the proposal, stating:
“Dynamic fees are designed to prevent users from being priced out of the network while ensuring sustainable miner economics.”

Market Response and Broader Implications

Following the announcement, ZEC saw a sharp price increase as traders responded to the potential of a more efficient fee system. The proposal arrives at a time when Zcash has become one of the highest fee-generating networks in the broader cryptocurrency landscape, an indicator of both demand and the need for structural reform.

If implemented, the dynamic fee model may enhance miner revenue consistency while improving user affordability—two critical components for long-term ecosystem health. The upgrade could also reinforce Zcash’s positioning among privacy-focused cryptocurrencies, especially as institutions increasingly explore regulated exposure through vehicles such as the Grayscale Zcash Trust.

While the proposal is still under discussion, ECC and ZF highlighted that any change must balance sustainability for miners with usability for everyday participants. As stablecoin and privacy-preserving tools gain traction globally, optimized fee structures could determine which networks remain competitive in a rapidly evolving market.

Continue Reading

Blockchain

Giggle Fund AI (GIGGLE) Debuts as BNB-Chain Meme Token With Charity-Minded Mechanics

Published

on

A new BNB-chain token, Giggle Fund AI (GIGGLE), has entered the memecoin scene with a blend of playful branding and a stated charitable vision. The project aims to combine meme-style appeal with a community-driven funding model, positioning itself as a fun but socially conscious entry among recent token launches.

Token Basics & Supply Structure

GIGGLE operates on the BNB (BEP-20) chain and comes with a fixed maximum supply of 21 million tokens — a relatively modest cap compared with many newer meme tokens. The tokenomics include an 8% tax applied to both buys and sells, designed to support liquidity, project marketing, and community growth. These characteristics align GIGGLE with early-stage tokens that attempt to balance hype with a basic sustainability mechanism.

Narrative: Memes, AI Theme & Community Focus

Embracing a playful, tech-inflected vibe, Giggle Fund AI wraps its branding around a lighthearted, AI-themed meme aesthetic. Rather than positioning itself purely as a speculative asset, the project promotes itself as a community and fun-driven token, aiming to stand out with a slightly different tone from high-volatility “pump-and-dump” style coins. This comedic, community-oriented positioning could attract investors looking for lower-stakes exposure with a dash of novelty.

Charity-Wing Ambitions

One of GIGGLE’s differentiators is a stated commitment to charitable causes. According to the project’s description, a portion of transaction fees is allocated to charitable or community-oriented funding initiatives. This gives GIGGLE a dual identity: part meme coin, part socially conscious experiment. For some investors, that added narrative may provide an emotional or ethical incentive beyond speculation.

Risks & What to Watch

As with many early-stage meme tokens, GIGGLE’s future is tied heavily to community interest, trading volume, and sustained engagement. The charitable mechanism and overall utility remain unproven — without transparent reporting, donations, or verifiable impact, the charity aspect may remain largely symbolic. Additionally, the tax on transactions reduces liquidity for frequent traders, which may deter active trading or speculative volume.

With a small supply but moderate tax structure, GIGGLE’s price could remain volatile — beneficial for risk-tolerant investors, but risky for those expecting stability. The project will heavily depend on community growth and transparency to avoid typical pitfalls seen in meme-coin cycles.

Continue Reading

Trending