On June 16, 2026, after experiencing consecutive attacks across Ethereum, BNB Chain (BSC), and Humanity Mainnet, Humanity finally issued its delayed official recovery plan: all old H tokens were officially declared permanently disabled and invalid, and would no longer be considered project-recognized assets, forcing the story to start from scratch. The project team chose to shrink the battleground back to Ethereum, where a brand new, audited ERC-20 contract was deployed, continuing to use the token symbol "H", attempting to regain trust that had been shattered by the attacks through a reboot. According to the announcement, the distribution of new H will be based on the balance snapshot before the attack, airdropping H from three chains at a ratio of 1:1 to the addresses holding H in the snapshot, attempting to "fully restore" the balance world prior to the incident; at the same time, addresses of attackers linked to North Korea were explicitly excluded, and would not receive a single byte of new H. However, this seemingly clean and straightforward reboot logic quickly tore open new divides when it fell into different hands: those who bought old H only after the attack and still held it were excluded from the 1:1 airdrop and could only wait for the official compensation fund that had yet to be detailed, and might face additional scrutiny such as KYC. Some were completely brought back to before the attack, some deemed enemies, and a number were stuffed into the ambiguous waiting room of the "compensation fund." In this reshuffling game of old coins becoming invalid and new coins rebooting, who was treated fairly, and who was quietly left behind in the fault line became a core issue that Humanity could not bypass.
Old Coin Declared Dead: Contracts on Three Chains Cut Off with One Stroke
In this announcement on June 16, Humanity provided the most drastic handling method: the old H token, which was once issued simultaneously on Ethereum, BNB Chain (BSC), and Humanity Mainnet, was uniformly declared "permanently disabled" and no longer regarded as an officially recognized asset. On-chain, these three old contracts still exist; addresses and balances will not disappear out of thin air, but from the project's perspective, they have been completely crossed off the economic map, becoming "legacy accounting" that lacks any official commitment endorsement.
For ordinary holders, this means that the old H in their wallets is merely a technical proof of the transition period—whether they can exchange back value in the new system depends on whether they fall within the coverage of the pre-attack snapshot and subsequent airdrop or compensation plan; for attackers, the old H that was previously gained through abnormal transfers or minting is completely isolated from the new contract, unable to naturally convert to new H and the attack earnings are institutionally cut off; and for the entire trading environment, this sweeping declaration sends a clear signal to all protocols, markets, and users: continuing to build liquidity or quotes around old H is equivalent to voluntarily conducting business on an asset that the project team has explicitly abandoned, with all risks borne by oneself. Multiple Chinese crypto media outlets focused on reporting "the invalidation of old H and the recovery plan" around June 16, which objectively reinforced this market consensus—old contracts have been abandoned; new games only continue in the audited H contract on Ethereum.
As people wondered "why not fix but rather remint," the announcement provided a simple fact: the project team did not publicly disclose any technical route attempting to fix the old contracts, but directly shifted to deploying a brand new contract on Ethereum, using a 1:1 airdrop based on the pre-attack snapshot. From a risk control perspective, this equals the acknowledgment that the safety and trust foundation of the multi-chain old contracts have been irreversibly damaged—continuing to patch up a system that has once been breached and tangled across three chains is not only difficult for users to regain belief that "this time it is really secure," but may also create new inconsistencies and disputes in subsequent operations; in contrast, rebooting the narrative with a new contract, new chain state, and clear snapshot boundaries, though costly, is an extreme but executable choice that allows the project team to control the consequences and delineate responsibilities under the current information conditions.
New H Airdrop 1:1: The Boundary of Inside and Outside the Snapshot
The restart begins with the contract. Humanity shrinks new H to one chain, only deploying a brand new ERC-20 contract on Ethereum, with the contract officially marked as "audited," while the token symbol deliberately remains the familiar "H." On the surface, this is almost a seamless brand transition—H is still in the wallet, but the network has shifted from three chains running in parallel to one chain bearing it, condensing the security narrative within this new contract code.
The real dividing line hides within the snapshot. Humanity took the balance before the attack as a basis and unifiedly froze the state of H holdings on Ethereum, BNB Chain (BSC), and Humanity Mainnet, then promised to airdrop new H on Ethereum at a 1:1 ratio to "legitimate holding addresses" within the snapshot. Addresses of attackers related to North Korea were written onto an exclusion list, forever unable to receive this new token seen as "clean"; similarly excluded are those who only took over old H after the attack but still hold it today—their accounting chips are not within the snapshot, and can only watch from outside this 1:1 recovery plan, with the address boundary defined by the snapshot serving both as the execution standard of the recovery plan and as the starting point for all subsequent disputes.
The Predicament of New Holders: Compensation Fund and Identity Verification
For those who only bought old H after the attack and still hold it today, the exclusion clause in the announcement feels like a delayed sentence: they cannot receive the 1:1 airdrop at the snapshot time, nor can they confirm whether they will definitely recover from the compensation. Humanity's proposed arrangement is to separately establish an official compensation fund, specifically to handle these complex scenarios outside the snapshot; however, as of June 16, the specific rules and execution processes of the fund remain blank in public materials, leaving many new holders waiting in the gap between "there is a fund" and "not sure how to compensate."
What truly pricks the nerves of old users is that line of seemingly technical explanation behind the compensation fund—that part of the compensation process may require the completion of KYC and other compliance verifications. For many retail investors who initially chose to hold H across multiple chains, they expected a recovery that was purely based on the chain, solved through contracts and snapshots, but are now being told: to reclaim losses caused by the attacks and disabling, they may have to first give up their identities. Caught between "recovering principal" and "maintaining anonymity," new holders excluded from the snapshot are forced to make a choice, and the project team writing this question into the recovery plan itself inevitably tears open a new trust rift between compensation promises and privacy expectations.
Security Audit and Sanctions List: Humanity's Compliance Signals
While introducing KYC for the compensation fund, Humanity also placed another foot of the recovery action on "security audits." The announcement clearly states that new H is an audited ERC-20 contract deployed on Ethereum, meant to completely replace the three chains' old contracts that are now seen as unsafe. For old users who have experienced abnormal transfers and minting, this is not just a technical upgrade, but a stance: the project team attempts to hedge against the previous collapse of trust in contracts by presenting "we wrote a new, reviewed contract," shifting the future risk narrative from "will this contract have issues again" to "is this set of audit and defense systems sufficient."
More pointedly, Humanity explicitly excluded addresses of attackers related to North Korea in the recovery plan, examining what was originally regarded as "on-chain neutrality" against the backdrop of international sanctions lists, further adding the hint that the compensation fund may require KYC, thus pushing the entire recovery process into a clearer compliance framework. In the crypto industry, there have been instances where projects excluded sanctioned addresses after security incidents or even collaborated with law enforcement, attempting to gain living space in an environment of rising regulatory pressure. Now, Humanity has written this idea into the evolution of the protocol itself through audits, new contracts, sanctions exclusions, and identity verification, which means it is willing to step back in decentralized anonymity narratives to redefine its long-term position within a "compliance-explainable" coordinate system.
What Token Rebirth Teaches Multi-chain Projects
When placed back into the multi-chain narrative, this crisis primarily exposed that once tokens are issued simultaneously on Ethereum, BNB Chain, and Humanity Mainnet, an attack is no longer a "single point of failure," but will quickly evolve into a unified upgrade, disabling, and governance coordination dilemma across three chains. Ultimately choosing to completely invalidate old H on three chains, only redeploying an audited new contract on Ethereum, and using the pre-attack snapshot covering three chains' balances to airdrop new H, is essentially forcing a "new order" onto a single chain after multi-chain disorder, with the cost being that governance must make harder cuts and more centralized decisions.
From the perspective of who to protect and who to abandon, "old coin invalidation + new coin 1:1 airdrop" indeed prioritizes old holders before the attack, with the snapshot covering the balances across three chains, trying to restore the interrupted asset curve as much as possible; the public exclusion of addresses related to attackers from North Korea draws a bottom line between safety and compliance. However, users who took over old H after the attack and still hold it are excluded from this snapshot, having to turn to an additional compensation fund, waiting for a solution path that has not yet fully disclosed its details within processes that may require KYC. Multiple Chinese media reports have concentrated on this recovery plan, making it almost destined to become a case that multi-chain projects must reflect upon during their design: in the future, observation should not only focus on whether new H can truly replace the old ecosystem in Ethereum's adoption and circulation, but also on whether the compensation fund progresses transparently, predictably, and whether future planners of multi-chain assets can design clear disabling mechanisms, cross-chain snapshot rules, and priority compensation sequences in extreme situations in advance.
Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Exclusive Hyperliquid benefits for AiCoin: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
Exclusive Aster benefits for AiCoin: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata
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。
