Blur official announcement announced that airdrops will be issued on February 14th (open the box to issue tokens $BLUR)

Original link: https://twitter.com/blur_io/status/1616125798951571456?s=20&t=8343L5-CbtBxJtewC5RXAQ

Today, by the way, I will sort out and share here a tweet I wrote when the second phase of the airdrop started.

When Blur’s second phase airdrop opened for claiming, I believe everyone noticed one of the thresholds—users must perform a Bid behavior before they can claim the box. Different from the bidding methods of Opensea and other platforms, Blur adopts the form of a fund pool. Many users are somewhat confused about the Bid behavior of the Blur platform. Therefore, I analyzed Blur’s Bid logic and shared it with you for discussion.

Let’s talk about the conclusion first: Blur did not carry out real innovation, it just replaced the WETH intermediary with a new intermediary on its own platform. And the deposit fund pool contract has not been audited (or it has been audited but the audit report has not been disclosed)

On the surface, Blur's Bid process is refreshing. It abandons the use of WETH as the Bid transfer and instead creates a Blur Pool. Users must deposit ETH into the pool before making a Bid in order to conduct subsequent bidding. Users' funds in the pool can be deposited and withdrawn at any time, with no amount or time limit. But is this really the case? Does Blur really help users bypass WETH and bid directly with ETH?

When I checked the wallet transfer records through 0xScope, I found an exception. In the picture below, in the tx at 3:20:59, I deposited 0.01Eth into the Blur Pool. It stands to reason that when the wallet transfers ETH out at this time, the label should be [Send], but the Scope shows [ Receive】label.

The same observation was made at 3:31:32 for this tx. At that time, the 0.01ETH just deposited was retrieved from the pool. At this time, the wallet [Receive] 0.01ETH was marked with the [Send] tag, and the interaction objects of the two tx They are all [Null Address: 000...000], which is a bit strange. It is obviously a deposit and withdrawal in the Pool, why is it related to the black hole.

So I checked the tx details on Etherscan and found that when the first tx was deposited, 0.01ETH was transferred to this address 0x0000000000a39bb272e79075ade125fd351887ac. After multiple other tx transactions, it was confirmed that the address was the Blur Pool contract address. The most critical thing is: there is a new ERC-20 token sent to my wallet from [Null Address:000...000].

Next, let’s look at the withdrawal tx. In this tx, I used my wallet to interact with Pool’s contract, and Pool transferred 0.01ETH to my wallet. The withdrawal should have been completed here. But my wallet unexpectedly transferred 0.01 of the above-mentioned new ERC-20 tokens to [Null Address:000...000]. At this point, I suddenly realized why Scope "reverses" the labels of the two tx [Send] and [Receive]

This is not Scope's fault. Observe carefully, is the new token transferred to my wallet from [Null Address:000...000] when I deposit "ETH"? When I withdraw money, is the new token that is inexplicably transferred out of my wallet "ETH"? The answer is no, it is not the real ETH, but a token with the same vector image as the real ETH. The name is "()", which has now been renamed "Blur Pool()"

Then scrolling down, the contract of "()" is 0x0000000000A39bb272e79075ade125fd351887Ac, which looks very familiar and seems to be exactly the same as Pool's contract.

0x0000000000A39bb272e79075ade125fd351887Ac 0x0000000000a39bb272e79075ade125fd351887ac

It's actually not the same, and it looks like a "father-son relationship".

Let’s first look at the contract of Pool (capital A) 0x0000000000A39bb272e79075ade125fd351887Ac. You can see that when the user’s wallet calls this contract for deposits and withdrawals, real money ETH is deposited into the Blur fund pool, and the value is displayed as [Ether]

Looking at the contract of token "()" (lowercase a) 0x0000000000a39bb272e79075ade125fd351887ac, when the user deposits or withdraws real money ETH, [Null Address:000...000] will always send/transfer the same amount to the wallet. "()", note that the value is not displayed here, but the quantity is displayed, and there is no unit [Ether] after the number!

It is basically clear when you see this: When a user deposits money into the Bid capital pool, he actually locks the ETH in the capital pool, and then the pool will send you a new token through the null address, which means giving you some 1:1 The Happy Bean anchored to ETH allows users to bid on the Blur platform. Of course, this Happy Bean can only be circulated within Blur.

When the same user withdraws money, the Pool will also unlock the deposited ETH and send the ETH to the user's wallet, but at the same time, a 1:1 equivalent amount of Happy Beans in the user's wallet must be destroyed. So Blur is just old wine in new bottles, replacing the intermediary WETH with a new intermediary created by its own platform.

It is also worth noting that it has been nearly two months since this tweet was written, and Blur has still not released the audit report of its Pool contract, which is somewhat worrying.

This article is not FUD, only an objective analysis. In the past six months of development, the Blur platform has been quite dynamic in some aspects. The number of daily active address users and transaction volume can be equal to opensea. The design of the royalty mechanism is also more reasonable, attracting many creators and market trading users, and is expected to impact NFT. The top spot in the trading market. Fierce competition among platforms is conducive to the development of the industry and will also bring benefits to users. Finally, I wish everyone can make the first pot of gold in 2023 from the $BLUR airdrop!

I am coolboy, welcome everyone to follow my Twitter @coolboy011217 and share more on-chain analysis.