On May 12-13, 2026, an old issue that was supposed to be "retired" in 2022 was reopened: Transit Finance / Transit Swap’s early version of smart contracts deployed on TRON, which ceased to be used in 2022, still lay intact on the chain. Attackers exploited historical vulnerabilities over two days, stealing assets from a small number of users who still interacted with that contract. Multiple media outlets also emphasized that the number of affected users was low. In contrast, the current version of the smart contract used by Transit has been securely running for over four years, continuously undergoing security audits and monitoring, with no new vulnerabilities found during this incident. After the event, the project team quickly investigated the issue, pinpointing it to the old TRON contract, and promptly completed isolation and repairs, cooperating with additional security audits and rectifications around May 12, promising full compensation to all affected users; SlowMist founder Yuxian later publicly pointed out that the theft was essentially a historical residual issue from the 2022 security incident, rather than a new risk with the current on-chain contracts. This incident of “theft from an old contract” is viewed as a reminder to the entire industry—abandoning a contract does not equal absolute safety, and the line between the toxic legacy of old contracts and contemporary security responsibilities must be redrawn.

Obsolete TRON Contract That Has Not Disappeared

Tracing back along this line leads to a TRON contract that appears to have been "retired long ago." The old smart contract version deployed by Transit Finance on TRON stopped being used after 2022, with business traffic and user interactions shifted to the new version, but the contract code itself still remains intact on the chain, like a backdoor no one is watching anymore. The attackers targeted the historical vulnerabilities left in this door: they bypassed the current system, directly linking to the logical loopholes in the old contract that had not been thoroughly cleaned up, bringing issues that were supposed to be "sealed" with the 2022 incident back to the forefront. SlowMist founder Yuxian later clarified that the theft was recognized as a historical residual issue from the 2022 security incident, not a new risk with the current contracts.

In terms of results, this incident serves more as a reminder about "contract lifespan." Even if the business has long shifted away from the old contract, as long as permissions have not been fully reclaimed, leftover funds have not been safely migrated, and the contract itself has not been properly destroyed, this code remains alive on the chain and can still be exploited. Past security cases in the industry have repeatedly proven that abandonment does not equate to risk elimination. The current utilization of the old TRON contract was a concentrated outbreak of this "toxic legacy," while the new contracts in use, which have been operational for over four years, did not expose any new structural vulnerabilities during this attack.

Testing the New Contract’s Four-Year Security Record

From the on-chain operation records, the current version activated by Transit after the old TRON contract was retired has been running smoothly on the mainnet for over four years. During this time, this contract has remained under audit and security monitoring without being exposed to structural vulnerabilities similar to this incident. Therefore, when news of the attack broke, the market’s initial question was: was this a “new pit” or an old issue? SlowMist founder Yuxian clearly delineated this boundary in a public statement—this theft originated from historical residual vulnerabilities in early versions of the TRON smart contract, and the currently running smart contracts were unaffected, with multiple media outlets repeatedly emphasizing that users' routine interactions with the new version contracts were not impacted, effectively providing industry-level endorsement for the security of the new contracts based on on-chain facts.

However, four years of security records do not mean one can simply dismiss it with a “not my problem” attitude. After the incident, according to reports from Planet Daily and PANews, Transit Finance completed an additional round of security audits and rectifications around May 12: on one hand, to prove to the outside world that the current contract system can withstand further checks, and on the other hand, to take the opportunity to supplement knowledge by systematically integrating the audit recommendations and monitoring experiences accumulated over the past few years into contract lifecycle management. For users, this additional audit was not only a public explanation of “the existing system is still trustworthy” but also a test of whether Transit can maintain the value of its four-year safety record amidst turmoil.

From Historical Residuals to Full Compensation Commitment

Based on the additional audits and rectifications, when the theft was discovered in mid-May, Transit Finance quickly traced the issue back to the old version of the TRON contract that had long been discontinued and “pulled it out” of the operational system: isolating the relevant contracts, blocking subsequent interactions, and repairing the affected modules. According to multiple media reports, the number of affected users was small, which allowed emergency response measures to be completed within a controllable scope and enabled the contract system that had been in safe operation for over four years to withstand realistic pressure testing in this round of additional audit around May 12.

What truly determined market perception was the attitude subsequently given by Transit Finance—an official public commitment to provide full compensation for the affected users, attributing the losses from the historical residual vulnerabilities to the team’s account, rather than using the old rhetoric of "on-chain risks are borne by users." For affected users, this meant they would not have to pay for the toxic legacy of the old contract again; for a broader community of DeFi participants, this approach provides a referable example regarding user trust, brand reputation, and compliance awareness: old contracts can have issues, but whether the project team is willing to bear the residual responsibilities will directly determine its credit starting point in the next safety audit, the next collaborative negotiation, or even the next regulatory inquiry. The handling path from historical residuals to full compensation will be repeatedly used to measure the responsibilities and bottom lines of subsequent DeFi projects in similar incidents.

The Industry Price of Neglect in Old Contract Aftercare

This incident at Transit Finance has pulled an industry consensus that was originally buried in footnotes to the forefront: “stopping the use of a contract” does not mean it has been decommissioned from a risk perspective. That old TRON contract, abandoned since 2022, still retains its code intact on the chain, and the historical residual vulnerabilities remain equally preserved. Attackers dug up this "archive" in 2026, completing theft from a small number of user assets through the old contract. This process itself is practically a demonstration lesson—if usage abandonment is not accompanied by a resumption of permissions, pathways for the migration of residual assets, or even lacks destruction or freezing mechanisms, it will be like a “capsule” sealed by time, waiting to be reopened by patient individuals many years later.

From a broader perspective, this is not an isolated oversight of a single project but a common structural shortcoming across the DeFi industry. In recent years, multiple security cases have repeatedly highlighted that improperly handled abandoned contracts and residual permissions represent a layer among the most easily overlooked attack surfaces. Project teams often pour a significant amount of resources into “pre-launch audits” but leave blanks in the “post-decommissioning clean-up” stage—there are no clearly defined timelines for fund migration, no logic for default recovery of management permissions, and no provisions for retirement switches at the contract level. The Transit incident has been interpreted by multiple media as a warning that “abandoning contracts does not equal absolute safety,” pointing out clearly that future contract designs must incorporate the retirement phase into overall lifecycle security management, treating decommissioning, settling, freezing, and destroying as a previously agreed-upon script, rather than hastily piecing together remedial plans when the next incident occurs.

How to Rebuild Trust During the Make-Up Window

The recent failure of Transit on the old TRON contract reminds the market of a simple yet frequently overlooked fact: even if it is a “historical residual issue,” the responsibility ultimately falls back on the project team, and users need to learn to distinguish that what is being exploited is the vulnerabilities of an old version of the contract that has been inactive since 2022 but still exists on-chain, rather than the currently operational main system that has been running securely for over four years. In the short term, whether trust can be stemmed largely depends on a few specific, observable actions: whether the promised full compensation is finally delivered on time and scope; whether the initiated additional audits and rectifications result in publicly verifiable security improvement rhythms; and whether Transit provides a clear institutional commitment in contract lifecycle management, rather than a one-time “clean-up statement.” In the context where Yuxian, the founder of SlowMist, and multiple media outlets continuously emphasize “this is a historical residual issue from an old contract,” this incident has pushed to the center of the industry classroom—it is not only a make-up window for Transit but also a concentrated assessment for all protocols to reevaluate retirement mechanisms and security culture. The thoroughness of this round of make-up work will determine whether the risks of similar old contracts are truly absorbed or continue to reappear in new incident forms in the future.

Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
AiCoin On-chain: https://aicoin.com/hyperliquid
AiCoin Exclusive Hyperliquid Benefits: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
AiCoin Exclusive Aster Benefits: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2

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。