🔥 INSIGHT: Same playbook, bigger bill. Putting the Binance hack next to Bybit's, Blockaid co-founder Ido Ben-Natan says the level of sophistication was basically identical, with the dollar amount being the big difference. Hackers are getting better with AI like everyone else, and that should worry exchanges, he warns... on #CHAINREACTION.show more

@blockaid_ Same playbook, bigger bill is the scary part. If the method didn't change, why are exchanges still getting caught by it?

@blockaid_ same playbook, bigger bill. a tangem card connects to nothing until you tap it to sign

@blockaid_ same playbook as bybit and exchanges are still blind signing

@blockaid_ scale is scary fr

@blockaid_ AI may speed up the attack but weak signing controls still open the door.

@blockaid_ hackers getting better with ai every month meanwhile i still can't beat a pump fun dev with a 3 day old wallet

@blockaid_ Same hole, bigger bill. Bybit lost about $1.5B in ETH in Feb 2025 and the FBI pinned it on North Korea within 5 days.

@blockaid_ If the playbook is identical, the weak link was never the code. It's the humans approving the signatures.

Same playbook, bigger bill — Binance and Bybit read like one template: social engineering, leaked keys, race to launder. The gap between hacks isn't security innovation, it's scale. When two record breaches land in a year, is the industry learning or just collecting bigger targets?

@blockaid_ Same playbook is the indictment. Bybit was February 2025. If identical tradecraft worked 20 months later at 4x the scale, the industry read the postmortem and didn't change its signing controls. AI speeds up recon. It doesn't explain the same door being open twice.

@blockaid_ AI is making everything faster, including cyberattacks. Exchanges really need to step up their security game.

@blockaid_ exchanges need to treat ai like a threat model not a buzzword tbh

@blockaid_ Bybit lost ~$1.5B in Feb 2025. Binance ~$6.3B now. Same sophistication, 4x the bill. The fix is boring: simulate every signer tx on a separate device before anyone clicks approve.

@blockaid_ Same playbook twice means the weak point is process, not cryptography. Signing flows that a tired human approves are where AI-assisted attackers will keep winning until approvals get slower and more paranoid.

@blockaid_ Bybit lost about $1.5 billion in February 2025 through a compromised Safe wallet interface rather than a broken smart contract, which is why the weak point keeps being the people signing transactions.

@blockaid_ same playbook, bigger balance sheet

@blockaid_ in this era, CEX and defi protocols don't have any choice than to heavily invest in security

@blockaid_ Hackers leveling up their game. Scary times!

@blockaid_ Bybit lost ~$1.5B in Feb 2025, also tied to North Korea. Binance's $6.3B is 4x that. Is AI making hackers better or exchanges lazier?

@blockaid_ "Same playbook, bigger bill" is the scary part. Bybit should have been the warning shot. If the same approach still lands at a bigger exchange 20 months later, the gap isn't fancy tech, it's how hot wallet signing and approvals get checked.

@blockaid_

@blockaid_ hackers are just running the same loops with better tooling fr

@blockaid_ If the playbook is the same, the dollar gap is the warning: attackers scale faster than defenses. Exchanges need AI-speed monitoring and wallet controls, not just post-hack reimbursements — because the next target won't wait for a post-mortem.

@blockaid_ Users won't remember how sophisticated it was. They'll remember how fast their withdrawals came back.

@blockaid_ bybit and binance both went down on a signature someone approved without seeing what it really did. if exchanges with full security teams fall for it, read every wallet prompt twice

@blockaid_ Same playbook, bigger payday.

@blockaid_ hackers keep getting ai upgrades. my ledger just sits in a drawer doing its job

@blockaid_ same playbook twice means the defence didn't change between bybit and binance. attackers upgraded to AI, the signing flow is still a person clicking approve