Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 36 references

Towards Secure and Trustworthy DAOs for Cross-Chain Governance

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that a layered framework can make cross-chain DAO governance resistant to four attack classes.

desk verdict A well-organized position paper whose 'framework' doesn't actually engage the bribery and token-control attacks it claims to mitigate — worth a workshop referee, not a citation yet. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.16548 v1 pith:B4MKTHNA submitted 2026-07-17 cs.CR

Faisal Haque Bappy , Tahrim Hossain , Tarannum Shaila Zaman , Tariqul Islam This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CR
keywords cross-chainDAOgovernanceattacksthresholdcryptographyByzantinefaulttolerancemulti-partycomputationtime-lockedreversalsblockchaininteroperabilitydecentralized
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that cross-chain DAO governance — collective decision-making by token holders spread across multiple blockchains — is exposed to four amplified attack classes: bribery (including flash-loan vote buying), token-control exploits, human-computer interaction deceptions, and code/protocol vulnerabilities. It proposes a theoretical, multi-layered security framework to address all four. The components are a Governance Kernel with on-chain rule verifiers and auditor nodes; a Cross-Chain Trust Layer with threshold-signed relays (requiring a quorum of signers) and state channels; a Fraud-Resilient Consensus Layer using Byzantine fault-tolerant consensus with stake-weighted validation; multi-tier trust anchors with MPC-based key custody (keys split among independent parties); and a Resilience Layer with time-locked decision reversals and progressive dispute resolution. If the framework holds, a DAO could preserve governance integrity while operating across chains with inconsistent security models. The paper presents the design without an implementation or formal proof, and lists empirical evaluation and security proofs as future work.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a multi-layer composition of standard primitives. Threshold cryptography (requiring t-of-n honest signers) underpins the cross-chain trust layer; Byzantine fault-tolerant consensus with stake-weighted validation backs the fraud-resilient layer; MPC-based key custody distributes governance keys; optimistic state channels give fast off-chain execution with on-chain commitment; and time-locked decision reversals provide a rollback window. What carries the argument is the claim that these layers cover every phase of a governance attack — from proposal submission through cross-chain transmission to execution and post-hoc recovery.

What would settle it

Implement a minimal two-chain version of the framework on testnets, then simulate an attacker who acquires governance tokens via a flash loan and submits a malicious proposal. If the proposal can pass and execute before the threshold-signed relays and the time-locked reversal window stop it — or if corrupting one layer's quorum lets the attacker bypass the others — the central claim fails. The experiment would also test whether cross-chain verification latency nullifies the reversal window.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the attack surface of cross-chain operation — asynchronous messaging, fragmented token liquidity, inconsistent security models, reliance on bridges and oracles — can be contained by composing primitives into layers. On-chain rule verifiers reject rule-violating proposals before execution; threshold-signed relays require a quorum before governance data crosses chains; BFT consensus with stake weighting makes corrupting decisions expensive; MPC-based key custody removes any single key holder; time-locked reversals give a rollback window. Together, the paper claims, these layers neutralize the four cataloged attack classes while preserving decentralization.

Load-bearing premise

The framework's security rests on the assumption that standard primitives — threshold signatures, MPC, BFT consensus, optimistic state channels, and time-locked reversals — remain secure when composed in an asynchronous, heterogeneous multi-chain environment, and that the layering itself introduces no new attack surface.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the framework is correct, a governance proposal that violates encoded rules would be rejected before execution by the on-chain rule verifier, blocking the payload of many bribery and token-control attacks.
  • Threshold-signed relays would prevent any single compromised oracle or bridge from injecting forged governance data into another chain, and would anchor what is actually recorded so a deceptive interface cannot silently alter a vote.
  • MPC-based key custody would eliminate the single-key theft and unilateral takeover path that has ended many DAO compromises.
  • Time-locked decision reversals would give the community a bounded window to undo a maliciously passed proposal before irreversible state changes.
  • Byzantine fault-tolerant, stake-weighted consensus would make it unprofitable or infeasible for a flash-loan attacker to gain decisive voting power without detection.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper's own claims, its attack taxonomy could serve as a practical audit checklist for existing cross-chain DAOs, independent of whether the full framework is ever deployed.
  • The framework implicitly trades liveness for safety: time-locked reversals slow legitimate fast decisions, so a natural test is how often emergency reversals would be needed at realistic voting cadences.
  • The layered design suggests a modular deployment path — each layer can be tested on a single chain first, which would produce empirical evidence the paper leaves to future work.
  • If the composition holds, the architecture might generalize beyond DAOs to other cross-chain multiparty coordination, such as treasury management or cross-chain identity systems.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper identifies four attack vectors for cross-chain DAO governance — bribery, token-control exploits, human-computer interaction deceptions, and code/protocol vulnerabilities — and proposes a modular, multi-layered "theoretical framework" intended to mitigate them. The framework consists of a Governance Kernel with on-chain rule verification, a Cross-Chain Trust Layer using state channels and threshold-signed relays, a Fraud-Resilient Consensus Layer based on BFT and stake-weighted validation, Multi-Tier Trust Anchors with MPC-based key custody, and a Resilience Layer offering time-locked decision reversals and progressive dispute resolution. The paper explicitly states in Section V that formal security proofs and empirical evaluation are future work.

Significance. If the framework were rigorously specified and shown to mitigate the four attack classes, it could be a useful conceptual contribution to an important and under-studied problem. The paper cites relevant prior work on flash-loan attacks, bridge hacks, and DAO governance manipulation, and the taxonomy in Section III is a reasonable organizing device. However, the submission as it stands is a position/vision paper: there are no formal models, no security theorems, no implementation, and no empirical data. The central claim that the framework can "ensure secure, verifiable, and attack-resilient governance across blockchains" (Section IV) is therefore not substantiated. The paper's strengths are the breadth of the attack survey and the clear presentation of a modular architecture; its main weakness is the absence of any evidence or precise argument that the architecture works.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV (opening) and §V] The paper's central claim — that the proposed framework "ensure[s] secure, verifiable, and attack-resilient governance across blockchains" — is unsupported. Every framework component is described in conditional terms ("would operate", "would prevent", "would ensure"), and Section V concedes that formal proofs and empirical evaluation are future work. No adversary model, security definition, or correctness argument is given. This is load-bearing: the reader cannot verify that the framework actually mitigates any of the four attack classes.
  2. [§III.A–III.B vs §IV.C and §IV.B.2] The framework does not, on its face, address bribery or token-control attacks. Bribery (Section III.A) and token control (Section III.B) are attacks by token holders who acquire voting power through flash loans, arbitrage, or accumulation. Section IV.C's BFT consensus orders messages among validators and tolerates Byzantine faults, but it does not constrain the incentives or preferences of token holders, who are the actors casting votes. Section IV.B.2's threshold-signed relays ensure that a quorum of relays signs governance updates, but they do not prevent a quorum member from being bribed or from voting with acquired tokens. The paper provides no economic, game-theoretic, or cryptographic argument that these mechanisms deter vote buying or token accumulation. Thus, even under the paper's own taxonomy, two of the four attack classes are unmitigated.
  3. [§IV.B.1 and §IV.E] The Resilience Layer and optimistic state channels are specified at the level of intent without the details needed to assess their correctness. Time-locked decision reversals (Section IV.E) require a notion of finality and a global ordering of cross-chain events; in an asynchronous, heterogeneous multi-chain environment, the paper does not state how "time-locked" is defined, who initiates a rollback, what challenge period applies, or how disputes are resolved when different chains disagree. Similarly, Decentralized State Channels (Section IV.B.1) are described as achieving "fast finality" without specifying the optimistic challenge mechanism, bonding requirements, or liveness assumptions. These omitted details are necessary to determine whether the proposed layers introduce new attack surfaces or actually function as claimed.
  4. [§IV.A] The Governance Kernel and On-Chain Rule Verifier are described too vaguely to substantiate the claim that governance actions are "validated against formal verification models." No formal verification language, property set, or verification procedure is given. Auditor Nodes are said to "continuously analyzing governance activities for anomalies," but no detection criterion or anomaly model is defined. Without such specifications, the statement that these components "enforce governance rules" is vacuous and cannot be checked.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§II] Typo: "V oting can take place" should be "Voting can take place".
  2. [§III.A] Grammar: "Platforms like Curve [21] has faced" should be "have faced".
  3. [§IV (general)] The paper uses inconsistent terminology: "Fraud-Resilient Consensus Layer" in the text but "fraud-resistant consensus mechanisms" in the abstract and introduction. Please unify.
  4. [§IV.A–IV.E] Several components (Governance Kernel, Auditor Nodes, Multi-Tier Notaries) are introduced without any comparison to existing DAO security frameworks from the cited literature (e.g., [27], [9], [7]). A related-work comparison would help clarify what is genuinely novel.
  5. [References] Some references are non-archival or low-authority sources (e.g., [28] Substack, [32] news blog). For a security paper, please cite peer-reviewed or archival versions where available.
  6. [Figure 2] The "alternate" path in Figure 2 is unclear; the relationship between "Proposal fails to pass" and "Block critical security upgrade" is not drawn cleanly. Please clarify the figure.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is a proposed framework, not a derivation, so there is no reduction of outputs to inputs.

full rationale

The paper contains no equations, no fitted parameters, no empirical predictions, and no formal derivation chain. Its central claim is Section IV: 'We propose a modular, multi-layered theoretical framework for cross-chain DAO governance to ensure secure, verifiable, and attack-resilient governance across blockchains.' This is a design proposal, not a result derived from assumptions that include the conclusion. The framework's components are introduced as proposals using standard primitives (threshold cryptography, BFT consensus, MPC-based key custody, state channels, time-locked reversals), and the paper explicitly defers validation: 'We will empirically evaluate the framework through prototype implementations... We will also develop formal security proofs under various threat models.' The skeptical concern that BFT consensus and threshold relays do not obviously mitigate bribery and token-control attacks is a substantive correctness/evidence gap, not a circularity: the paper does not claim to derive the attack mitigations from those mechanisms by construction, nor does it fit anything and then present the same thing as a prediction. There are no self-citations that are load-bearing; all cited prior work is external. No renamed empirical result is presented as a new derivation. Thus the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 5 invented entities

The paper adds no fitted parameters or quantitative claims. It depends on the security of standard cryptographic and consensus primitives, on the completeness of its attack taxonomy, and on unstated composability assumptions. Named framework modules are recorded as invented entities without independent evidence.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Threshold cryptography and MPC provide secure key custody and signing when used as described.
    Section IV.B.2 and §IV.D assume these primitives work without detailing thresholds, adversary bounds, or composability.
  • domain assumption BFT consensus secures governance against bribery/collusion in cross-chain asynchronous settings.
    Section IV.C asserts 'Byzantine Fault-Tolerant (BFT) mechanisms with stake-weighted validation' without addressing known asynchrony limitations.
  • ad hoc to paper The four attack-vector categories are complete and disjoint.
    Section III proposes the taxonomy by selection of literature, not by a systematic derivation; an omitted attack class would invalidate the framework's coverage.
  • ad hoc to paper Governance rules can be formally represented and checked by an on-chain verifier.
    Section IV.A proposes an 'On-Chain Rule Verifier' with no specification language, proof system, or feasibility argument.
invented entities (5)
  • Governance Kernel
    purpose: Per-chain deterministic state machine that enforces governance rules and interacts with smart contracts.
    Described only as a module in Fig. 4; no interface, state, or rule specification.
  • Cross-Chain Trust Layer
    purpose: Threshold-signed oracles/relays and state channels to guarantee consistency and authenticity across chains.
    Relies on known primitives but no concrete protocol; no evidence it works in the claimed setting.
  • Fraud-Resilient Consensus Layer
    purpose: BFT plus stake-weighted validation to resist bribery and collusion.
    No consensus protocol specified; no analysis of governance-specific threats.
  • Multi-Tier Trust Anchor / MPC-Based Key Custody
    purpose: Distribute key control among independent parties and use decentralized notaries to avoid single points of failure.
    No key-management protocol details; security claims unverified.
  • Resilience Layer
    purpose: Time-locked decision reversals and progressive dispute resolution.
    No trigger conditions, delay parameters, or arbitration mechanics defined.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Secure and Trustworthy DAOs for Cross-Chain Governance." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B4MKTHNA

@misc{pith2026260716548,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Secure and Trustworthy DAOs for Cross-Chain Governance},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B4MKTHNA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.16548}
}
read the original abstract

Cross-chain DAOs face unique security challenges that go beyond traditional single-chain vulnerabilities. This paper identifies and categorizes four critical attack vectors in cross-chain DAO governance: bribery attacks, token control exploits, human-computer interaction deceptions, and protocol vulnerabilities. We propose a comprehensive security framework with a multi-layered architecture that integrates cryptographic trust anchors, fraud-resistant consensus mechanisms, and decentralized validation techniques to address these threats. Our framework introduces novel components, including a Governance Kernel with on-chain rule verification, a Cross-Chain Trust Layer using threshold cryptography, and a Resilience Layer offering time-locked decision reversals and progressive dispute resolution. By establishing a structured set of countermeasures, this work lays the foundation for secure, transparent, and attack-resistant governance across diverse blockchain environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.16548 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Cross-Chain Bribing Attack A typical attack workflow ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Cross-Chain Token Control Attack [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Cross-Chain HCI Attack D. Code and Protocol Vulnerabilities Smart contract vulnerabilities in single-chain DAOs, such as reentrancy, misconfiguration, and Oracle manipulation, fa￾cilitate attacks. The 2016 DAO hack exposed reentrancy risks [23], whereas Compound’s exploits revealed governance flaws [32]. Even audited contracts are vulnerable to unforeseen attacks. In a cross-chain environment, vulnerabilities arise … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of the Proposed Cross-Chain DAO Governance Framework [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Decentralized autonomous organization,

    S. Hassan and P. De Filippi, “Decentralized autonomous organization,” Internet Policy Review, vol. 10, no. 2, 2021

    2021

  2. [2]

    Decentral- ized autonomous organizations-evolution, challenges, and opportunities

    B. Schneider, R. Ballesteros, P. Moriggl, and P. M. Asprion, “Decentral- ized autonomous organizations-evolution, challenges, and opportunities.” inPoEM Workshops, 2022

    2022

  3. [3]

    Up- gradeable diamond smart contracts in decentralized autonomous organi- zations,

    P. van Vulpen, H. Heijnen, S. Mens, T. Kroon, and S. Jansen, “Up- gradeable diamond smart contracts in decentralized autonomous organi- zations,”Frontiers in Blockchain, vol. 7, p. 1481914, 2024

    2024

  4. [4]

    Blockchain dispute resolution for decentral- ized autonomous organizations: the rise of decentralized autonomous justice,

    F. Guillaume and S. Riva, “Blockchain dispute resolution for decentral- ized autonomous organizations: the rise of decentralized autonomous justice,” inBlockchain and private international law. Brill Nijhoff, 2023, pp. 549–641

    2023

  5. [5]

    An overview on cross-chain: Mechanism, platforms, challenges and ad- vances,

    W. Ou, S. Huang, J. Zheng, Q. Zhang, G. Zeng, and W. Han, “An overview on cross-chain: Mechanism, platforms, challenges and ad- vances,”Computer Networks, vol. 218, p. 109378, 2022

    2022

  6. [6]

    Sok: A review of cross-chain bridge hacks in 2023,

    N. Belenkov, V . Callens, A. Murashkin, K. Bak, M. Derka, J. Gorzny, and S.-S. Lee, “Sok: A review of cross-chain bridge hacks in 2023,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.03423, 2025

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Sok: Not quite water under the bridge: Review of cross-chain bridge hacks,

    S.-S. Lee, A. Murashkin, M. Derka, and J. Gorzny, “Sok: Not quite water under the bridge: Review of cross-chain bridge hacks,” in2023 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–14

    2023

  8. [8]

    Attacking the defi ecosys- tem with flash loans for fun and profit,

    K. Qin, L. Zhou, B. Livshits, and A. Gervais, “Attacking the defi ecosys- tem with flash loans for fun and profit,” inInternational conference on financial cryptography and data security. Springer, 2021, pp. 3–32

    2021

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Sok: Attacks on daos,

    R. Feichtinger, R. Fritsch, L. Heimbach, Y . V onlanthen, and R. Watten- hofer, “Sok: Attacks on daos,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.15071, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Blockchain bribing attacks and the efficacy of counterincentives,

    D. Karakostas, A. Kiayias, and T. Zacharias, “Blockchain bribing attacks and the efficacy of counterincentives,” inProceedings of the 2024 on ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 2024, pp. 1031–1045

    2024

  3. [11]

    Smartaxe: Detecting cross-chain vulnerabilities in bridge smart con- tracts via fine-grained static analysis,

    Z. Liao, Y . Nan, H. Liang, S. Hao, J. Zhai, J. Wu, and Z. Zheng, “Smartaxe: Detecting cross-chain vulnerabilities in bridge smart con- tracts via fine-grained static analysis,”Proceedings of the ACM on Software Engineering, vol. 1, no. FSE, pp. 249–270, 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Sok: Security and privacy of blockchain interoperability,

    A. Augusto, R. Belchior, M. Correia, A. Vasconcelos, L. Zhang, and T. Hardjono, “Sok: Security and privacy of blockchain interoperability,” in2024 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). IEEE, 2024, pp. 3840–3865

    2024

  5. [13]

    Security and privacy challenges in blockchain interoperability-a multivocal literature review,

    T. Haugum, B. Hoff, M. Alsadi, and J. Li, “Security and privacy challenges in blockchain interoperability-a multivocal literature review,” inProceedings of the 26th international conference on evaluation and assessment in software engineering, 2022, pp. 347–356

    2022

  6. [14]

    From technology to society: An overview of blockchain-based dao,

    L. Liu, S. Zhou, H. Huang, and Z. Zheng, “From technology to society: An overview of blockchain-based dao,”IEEE Open Journal of the Computer Society, vol. 2, pp. 204–215, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    Smart contracts: building blocks for digital markets,

    N. Szabo, “Smart contracts: building blocks for digital markets,”EX- TROPY: The Journal of Transhumanist Thought,(16), vol. 18, no. 2, p. 28, 1996

    1996

  8. [16]

    Reputation tokenomics: Dao governance design analy- sis,

    C. Calcaterra, “Reputation tokenomics: Dao governance design analy- sis,” 2023

    2023

  9. [17]

    Exploring off-chain voting and blockchain in decentralized autonomous organiza- tions,

    T. D. Monteiro, O. P. Sanchez, and G. H. S. M. d. Moraes, “Exploring off-chain voting and blockchain in decentralized autonomous organiza- tions,”RAUSP Management Journal, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 335–349, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    A review of dao governance: Recent literature and emerging trends,

    J. Han, J. Lee, and T. Li, “A review of dao governance: Recent literature and emerging trends,”Journal of Corporate Finance, p. 102734, 2025

    2025

  11. [19]

    Balancing power in decentralized governance: Quadratic voting and information aggrega- tion,

    A. Benhaim, B. Hemenway Falk, and G. Tsoukalas, “Balancing power in decentralized governance: Quadratic voting and information aggrega- tion,”Available at SSRN 4416748, 2024

    2024

  12. [20]

    V oting schemes in dao governance,

    Q. Ding, W. Xu, Z. Wang, and D. K. C. Lee, “V oting schemes in dao governance,”World Scientific Annual Review of Fintech, vol. 1, p. 2350004, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Curve dao,

    C. Finance, “Curve dao,” 2020, accessed: 2025-03-16. [Online]. Available: https://resources.curve.fi/pdf/curve-dao.pdf

    2020

  14. [22]

    Decentralised autonomous organizations (daos): An exploratory survey,

    C. Tang, Q. Cai, C. Dong, Q. Wang, and S. Chen, “Decentralised autonomous organizations (daos): An exploratory survey,”Distributed Ledger Technologies: Research and Practice, 2025

    2025

  15. [23]

    The dao hacked,

    V . Dhillon, D. Metcalf, M. Hooper, V . Dhillon, D. Metcalf, and M. Hooper, “The dao hacked,”blockchain enabled applications: Un- derstand the blockchain Ecosystem and How to Make it work for you, pp. 67–78, 2017

    2017

  16. [24]

    Analyzing voting power in decentralized governance: Who controls daos?

    R. Fritsch, M. M ¨uller, and R. Wattenhofer, “Analyzing voting power in decentralized governance: Who controls daos?”Blockchain: Research and Applications, vol. 5, no. 3, p. 100208, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    The hidden shortcomings of (d) aos–an empirical study of on-chain gov- ernance,

    R. Feichtinger, R. Fritsch, Y . V onlanthen, and R. Wattenhofer, “The hidden shortcomings of (d) aos–an empirical study of on-chain gov- ernance,” inInternational Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security. Springer, 2023, pp. 165–185

    2023

  18. [26]

    Unpacking how decentralized autonomous organizations (daos) work in practice,

    T. Sharma, Y . Potter, K. Pongmala, H. Wang, A. Miller, D. Song, and Y . Wang, “Unpacking how decentralized autonomous organizations (daos) work in practice,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC). IEEE, 2024, pp. 416–424

    2024

  19. [27]

    Dao decentralization: V oting-bloc entropy, bribery, and dark daos,

    J. Austgen, A. F ´abrega, S. Allen, K. Babel, M. Kelkar, and A. Juels, “Dao decentralization: V oting-bloc entropy, bribery, and dark daos,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.03530, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    O. Network. (2025) Our network deep dive. Accessed: 16 Mar. 2025. [Online]. Available: https://ournetwork.substack.com/p/ our-network-deep-dive-2

    2025

  21. [29]

    Moonbeam: Cross-Chain Connected Smart Contract Platform,

    Moonbeam Network, “Moonbeam: Cross-Chain Connected Smart Contract Platform,” 2025, accessed: 2025-03-16. [Online]. Available: https://moonbeam.network/

    2025

  22. [30]

    The de-central bank in decentralized finance: A case study of makerdao,

    M. Brennecke, T. Guggenberger, B. Schellinger, and N. Urbach, “The de-central bank in decentralized finance: A case study of makerdao,” 2022

    2022

  23. [31]

    Compound finance governance documentation,

    C. Labs, “Compound finance governance documentation,” https://docs. compound.finance/governance/, accessed: 2025-03-16

    2025

  24. [32]

    Compound finance fork easyfi loses over $60m in admin key hack,

    T. Defiant, “Compound finance fork easyfi loses over $60m in admin key hack,” 2024, accessed: 2025-03-16. [Online]. Available: https://thedefiant.io/news/hacks/ compound-finance-fork-easyfi-loses-over-60m-in-admin-key-hack

    2024

  25. [33]

    Explained: The wormhole hack (february 2022),

    R. Behnke, “Explained: The wormhole hack (february 2022),” https://www.halborn.com/blog/post/ explained-the-wormhole-hack-february-2022, 2022, accessed: 2025- 03-16

    2022

  26. [34]

    Explained: The ronin network hack (august 2024),

    ——, “Explained: The ronin network hack (august 2024),” https://www. halborn.com/blog/post/explained-the-ronin-network-hack-august-2024, 2024, accessed: 2025-03-16

    2024

  27. [35]

    How to share a function securely,

    A. De Santis, Y . Desmedt, Y . Frankel, and M. Yung, “How to share a function securely,” inProceedings of the twenty-sixth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, 1994, pp. 522–533

    1994

  28. [36]

    Blockchain consensus,

    I. Bashir, “Blockchain consensus,” inBlockchain Consensus: An Intro- duction to Classical, Blockchain, and Quantum Consensus Protocols. Springer, 2022, pp. 207–257

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.