2026-01-06 09:23:36

The Hooks mechanism of mainstream DEXs is rapidly evolving, but the security risks are also increasing. Why not establish a trusted Hooks whitelist mechanism in collaboration with aggregators and these DEX platforms, similar to an app store review system—allowing users to quickly identify which Hooks have been verified and which require caution. This whitelist mechanism can include dimensions such as security audit records, developer information, and usage data, reducing the risk of ecosystem participants being harmed by phishing contracts. If an industry consensus can be formed, it would be a significant boost to the healthy development of the entire DeFi ecosystem.

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.

11 Likes

Reward
11
10
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

QuorumVoter

· 01-08 11:13

Whitelist sounds good, but honestly, can this system really be implemented... Will the aggregators really cooperate? --- Another centralized review system, isn't this just reinventing the App Store? Feels a bit counterproductive. --- Bro, your idea is correct, but unfortunately, trust in DeFi is even scarcer than hook vulnerabilities. --- Phishing contracts are a stubborn problem. Can whitelists save fifty percent? I remain skeptical. --- How to verify developer information? Fake identities are everywhere. --- If it can really be done this way, it could prevent many newbies from getting scammed. The prerequisite is that this list doesn't become a tool for big platforms to monopolize. --- Sounds good in theory, but in the end, it's just a situation where big VCs control the narrative. --- Audit records are sometimes not very useful. Just look at those projects with high audit scores last year... --- This approach is fine, but the key is that the execution difficulty is seriously underestimated. --- Rather than relying on whitelists, it's better to do your own homework. Ultimately, on-chain security still depends on yourself.

View OriginalReply0

GasGuru

· 01-07 23:52

This idea sounds good, but can you really trust the whitelist system? In the end, you still have to do your own research—don't expect the platform to take the blame for you.

View OriginalReply0

ParallelChainMaxi

· 01-07 00:30

Another whitelist scheme... sounds good, but who will review it? In the end, it's still a few major players who make the decisions, and small developers' Hooks are once again stuck.

View OriginalReply0

OptionWhisperer

· 01-06 18:17

The whitelist idea sounds good, but can it really be implemented... It feels like a bunch of influencers just shouting slogans there. Phishing contracts have been emerging all the time, and audit records can also be faked. The key is for users to be more cautious. It's always hindsight after the fact. The app store approach also has its vulnerabilities. What really matters is doing more checks before interaction. Don't be so greedy.

View OriginalReply0

MEV_Whisperer

· 01-06 09:52

Whitelists sound great, but who will review them? Centralization would just be the end. --- Another standard process. Will it last more than six months this time? --- That's right. Now hookscape is out, and it's impossible to prevent, someone needs to oversee it. --- But relying on whitelists is also dangerous. What if the reviewers are bought off? --- I like this idea, but I'm just worried that the big players will each do their own thing and can't collaborate. --- Wait, who is responsible for this whitelist? Is it another foundation? I still don't trust it. --- Reasonable suggestion, but would the DEX folks agree? They all want to monopolize their own ecosystems. --- Instead of a whitelist, it's better to directly increase the cost of phishing, so small investors can also use multi-signature wallets.

View OriginalReply0

TerraNeverForget

· 01-06 09:50

Whitelists sound good, but who will be the gatekeeper? Isn't that just the same centralized approach? --- Honestly, hooks are a mess right now, with new tricks every day. Whitelists can't save those greedy people. --- App store review systems? Haha, you really dare to compare. DeFi is all about freedom, brother. --- Phishing contracts are indeed annoying, but relying on whitelists actually limits innovation. It's not that simple. --- That logic makes sense, but the key is whether aggregators will really take it seriously, driven by利益... --- Industry consensus? Wake up, this circle hasn't even formed a consensus yet, right? --- Damn, trying to implement centralized reviews again? It's better to spend more time learning how to identify risks yourself.

View OriginalReply0

TokenomicsShaman

· 01-06 09:49

Whitelist sounds good, but can this really be implemented? It feels like just another review that can be bypassed. --- Honestly, the hooks ecosystem is now just a sieve. The whitelist idea is good, but it needs to be truly executed. --- Will the application store approach work? Centralized review in the DEX area might actually become a bottleneck. --- Phishing contracts can't be prevented; whitelist is just an illusion. Users still need to be more vigilant. --- If a unified standard could really be established, I would be the first to support it. But it's impossible for decentralized communities to reach consensus. --- Adding audit records and developer information is somewhat interesting; it's much more reliable than just a pure whitelist. --- Another seemingly perfect plan, but in practice, each major DEX will just do its own thing when it comes to implementation. --- Industry consensus? Haha, don't make me laugh. The interests involved are too significant. --- Instead of creating a whitelist, it might be more useful to standardize code audit fees.

View OriginalReply0

gm_or_ngmi

· 01-06 09:37

Another set of whitelists? Sounds good, but can it really be implemented? Feels like just a beautiful vision. The current problem is who will do the review. Centralized review is still the same old approach. Hooks are inherently double-edged; if you want security, you might have to sacrifice innovation speed. Honestly, I'm just worried that the whitelist will be monopolized by some big players, and small developers won't have a chance to get in. The phishing contract incident reminded me of the whitelist; it's a recurring cycle. However, the idea of multi-layer auditing is still acceptable, as long as it doesn't get too complicated. The DeFi ecosystem needs protection but also shouldn't be over-regulated. Finding that balance is very difficult.

View OriginalReply0

ForkItAllDay

· 01-06 09:26

Good grief, both whitelist and review systems—what freedom is left for DeFi with this setup? Phishing contracts are indeed disgusting, but the real issue is who holds the review authority. To put it nicely, isn't it just monopolized by big platforms? I remain skeptical.

View OriginalReply0

not_your_keys

· 01-06 09:25

Well said, but can the whitelist system really be implemented? It feels like another familiar discussion. --- Putting up a whitelist openly, in the end, is still a centralized trick—believe it or not. --- This idea is good, but I'm just worried it will turn into a few big players calling the shots. --- Phishing contracts are indeed annoying, but who bears the audit costs? What about small developers? --- The application store approach can't really prevent issues; don't be too optimistic. --- Building a whitelist together needs to be slow, but at least the direction is correct. --- The problem is that DEXs don't trust each other; how can they cooperate? --- Having only a whitelist is useless; users will still click around randomly.

View OriginalReply0