At the beginning of July, the well-known decentralized contract trading platform GMX was suddenly attacked by hackers, resulting in losses close to $42 million. Overnight, GMX's selling points of "low slippage, high leverage, and no permission" turned into a "fatal weakness" that sparked heated discussions in the security community.
Behind this incident was not merely a technical bug, but rather a reality check on the narrative of high leverage in DeFi: when liquidity, anonymity, and openness collide, what exactly do decentralized derivatives bring to the crypto market?
GMX was once regarded as a star in decentralized derivatives. Unlike centralized exchanges that match orders through an order book, GMX employs a unique no-slippage mechanism, allowing users to trade directly with a liquidity pool, ensuring a leveraged experience while bypassing the traditional market's permission barriers for derivatives.
However, it was precisely this design that provided hackers with an opportunity—manipulating prices or liquidity at an extremely low cost, combined with external oracle or contract logic flaws, to leverage the entire liquidity pool. For GMX, what appeared to be a "vulnerability" was, in fact, a concentrated outbreak of structural risks in DeFi.
Since the rise of the Ethereum ecosystem, decentralized derivatives have embodied many DeFi players' imaginations of "financial freedom": no KYC, leverage multiples at will, liquidity provided by the community, and contract code as the rules.
This freedom is exhilarating but can easily spiral out of control. Without centralized risk control, liquidation, and arbitration mechanisms, once someone identifies a loophole in the mechanism, they can leverage a massive liquidity pool with minimal capital. The attack on GMX is a typical example of a "zero-cost amplification" game—similar to the model of hedge funds exploiting regulatory loopholes in traditional financial markets, but amplified by tenfold or hundredfold.
In the crypto world, the core advantage of decentralization is also its greatest risk point: once a smart contract is launched, anyone can use it, and it is difficult to prevent hackers from exploiting it. Many DeFi protocols were able to grow rapidly in their early stages relying on community trust and liquidity rewards, but when the liquidity pool exceeds one billion dollars, a single vulnerability can become a nuclear bomb for the entire ecosystem.
GMX's experience is not an isolated case. With previous incidents involving Curve and later Mango Markets, the reasons for the breaches vary, but the logic exploited by attackers is strikingly similar: finding structural weaknesses in oracles, liquidity pools, or liquidation mechanisms, and using leverage to turn small arbitrage opportunities into substantial withdrawable assets.
In traditional finance, such "regulatory arbitrage" often requires months of operation, while DeFi allows these operations to be executed and made irreversible in seconds.
With each vulnerability attack, it is always the ordinary LPs (liquidity providers) and retail investors who suffer the most. Once a protocol is hacked, governance tokens typically face a crash, and if the insurance fund is insufficient, the losses are directly borne by the users remaining in the pool.
What’s more challenging is that this risk is difficult to eliminate entirely. Hackers can be professional white hats or anonymous arbitrageurs; as long as there are sufficient incentives, smart contracts will inevitably be the optimal attack and defense targets for gray market groups.
After the GMX incident, although the project team quickly patched the vulnerabilities and promised compensation, a crack in trust has already appeared for the entire DeFi industry. As regulations tighten and users become more sensitive to security, decentralized derivatives must find a new balance between freedom and safety to gain larger-scale mainstream funding support.
Nevertheless, decentralized derivatives are still seen as the next growth point for DeFi. Compared to centralized platforms, they allow ordinary users for the first time to market make, hedge, leverage, and even provide matching and liquidation for derivative contracts using code. However, to go further between technical feasibility and risk control, it is essential to solve the old problems of oracles, liquidity depth, and on-chain risk control.
Some new projects are attempting to introduce upgradeable contracts and off-chain arbitration, while some teams are exploring multi-signature custody and rollback insurance designs, all working towards providing a safety net for the next phase of DeFi. The damage to GMX may force the industry to rethink compliance, auditing, and mechanism transparency.
DeFi has always been an experimental field where risk and innovation coexist, and the GMX vulnerability is just the latest reminder: in a world without centralized risk control, the so-called "code is law" sometimes means that hackers understand the law better than users.
Whether decentralized derivatives can become a new variable in the global financial market does not depend on how much TVL there is or how high the leverage is, but rather whether they can truly find a sustainable safety boundary in an open, trustless environment.
Perhaps this is also the fateful question that DeFi must answer: in free finance, who will provide the safety net?
Related: "Bears in disbelief"—As Bitcoin (BTC) rises, $1 billion in crypto shorts are liquidated.
Original article: “The Fragile Boundaries of Decentralization: The DeFi Concerns Behind the GMX Vulnerability Incident”
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
