2025-12-25 02:21:55

In 2025, a type of security incident has caused particular frustration—it doesn't occur on just one chain but involves a synchronized attack script sweeping across multiple chains such as BNB Chain, Base, Taiko, and others. Before you can even react to what’s happening, assets have already been transferred away. This cross-chain synchronized attack immediately turns the "multi-chain deployment" from a strategic advantage into a risk amplifier: the more chains involved, the more vulnerabilities there are, and the higher the likelihood of being attacked.

What are the direct consequences? Funds begin to avoid complex cross-chain routes. Especially concerning "USD assets"—it's unlikely you'll want to lock core active funds into cross-chain bridges, cross-chain messaging protocols, or cross-chain contracts. At this point, a new need emerges: is there a way to make USD assets directly available on each chain without repeatedly "moving" them?

This is why stablecoin design becomes critical. USDD, as a decentralized, over-collateralized stablecoin pegged 1:1 to the USD, can directly serve as collateral, a lending tool, liquidity provider, or liquidation asset within DeFi. When multi-chain risk events occur frequently, the smartest approach is to keep the cash layer simple—allocate some funds into USDD and lock them on-chain, and only redistribute to various strategy layers when actual operations are needed, rather than leaving idle funds to cross-chain around with you.

Deeper logic reveals that USDD’s pegging mechanism includes built-in correction paths, over-collateralization provides a buffer for redemption, and multi-chain deployment ensures consistency. The combination of these three layers of protection forms a comprehensive approach to addressing "cross-chain risks."

USDD0,02%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

12 Likes

Reward
12
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

BearMarketBard

· 2025-12-27 20:35

Cross-chain attacks sweeping across multiple chains in one go. If you react a bit slower, your assets are gone. Who can withstand that? --- Multi-chain deployment was originally meant to diversify risk, but it ended up being a collection of risks. That's hilarious. --- Rather than running around everywhere, it's better to keep your money stable in USDD to avoid unnecessary trouble. --- Basically, it's about simplifying the cash layer. Don't drag idle funds into the cross-chain quagmire. --- Over-collateralization + anchoring + multi-chain deployment—this combo really feels satisfying. --- Are those bridge projects really failing so frequently, or is it just my poor memory? --- The demand for directly usable USD assets across chains is only now being realized. It's a bit late. --- Three-layer security sounds reliable, but in practice, it depends on whether the project team has a conscience. --- It sounds good, but whether USDD can truly withstand extreme situations remains to be seen. --- Cross-chain synchronization attacks are indeed outrageous. One script can sweep everything, making it hard to defend against.

View OriginalReply0

PhantomMiner

· 2025-12-27 15:57

Cross-chain instant zeroing, or should we just honestly hoard stablecoins --- Another "smart person" harvesting cycle, the more chains there are, the greater the risk. This should have been clear long ago --- The logic behind USDD is actually to prevent human greed, but you guys will still go all in --- No matter how beautifully you put it, it doesn't change the fact that cross-chain bridges can cause people's funds to get stuck --- The cash layer is simple, strategy layer is complicated. Sounds good, but who actually operates like that? --- Over-collateralization sounds safe, but what if the collateral is also attacked simultaneously? Have you thought about that? --- To make decentralized stablecoins truly stable, you first need to survive the next rug pull wave

View OriginalReply0

MetaDreamer

· 2025-12-25 02:52

Cross-chain transfer disappears with a single scan, this is really outrageous. It's better to lock the funds securely and not mess around.

View OriginalReply0

MoneyBurnerSociety

· 2025-12-25 02:45

The feeling of cross-chain synchronization being cut off... I always say that multi-chain deployment sounds impressive, but in reality, it just opens multiple doors for hackers. Moving assets back and forth becomes a suicidal operation, really.

View OriginalReply0

POAPlectionist

· 2025-12-25 02:44

Cross-chain synchronization attacks are indeed something to take seriously. A single script can wipe out assets across multiple chains—just thinking about it is terrifying... --- So now everyone is leaning towards stablecoins? Feels like a strong risk transfer vibe. --- The logic behind USDD sounds good, but whether it can truly withstand the test depends on its actual performance. --- The idea that multi-chain is an amplifier of risk might be a bit exaggerated. The key is whether it can be effectively protected against. --- I just want to know what the current over-collateralization ratio of USDD is—that determines how reliable it really is. --- Moving assets back and forth in the Bridge is really annoying; having them available directly on each chain is indeed tempting. --- It all sounds very ideal. Is it really that practical in reality? --- Isn't this exactly what stablecoins are supposed to do? What's so special...

View OriginalReply0

ThesisInvestor

· 2025-12-25 02:35

Cross-chain attacks cause the entire chain to be compromised; multi-chain deployment has become a vulnerability --- It's the same script again, BNB and Base take turns scanning, responses are too slow --- Stablecoins do offer solutions, but you need to choose the right ones --- The USDD over-collateralization model at least provides peace of mind --- Instead of transferring assets across multiple chains, it's better to keep the money in one place and only move it when you really need to operate --- To put it simply, multi-chain = more opportunities to be hacked. These days, security is more valuable than strategic returns

View OriginalReply0

SchrodingerProfit

· 2025-12-25 02:34

A set of scripts directly penetrate multiple chains, now that's real despair... Multi-chain deployment now feels like opening a highway for hackers. This point is indeed valid; stablecoins have become a safe haven. Instead of cross-chain chaos every day, it's more reassuring to lock USDD. Cross-chain feels exciting for a moment, but it's a security fire pit. We still need to find ways to make the cash layer less complicated. Multiple chains = multiple vulnerabilities? It feels like these days, instead of doing DeFi, we're doing mine sweeping... I get the logic of USDD's over-collateralization; it just has to be trustworthy enough to hold up, right?

View OriginalReply0