📅 July 11, 2025 | Singapore
In an unexpected twist that has the entire DeFi ecosystem talking, GMX, one of the most popular decentralized trading protocols, announced that it has managed to recover almost 70% of the funds stolen after an exploit suffered last week. The key? A direct negotiation with the hacker, who agreed to return millions of dollars in exchange for an "official reward." The news, which was confirmed on forums like X (formerly Twitter) and on official community channels, has sparked an intense debate: is it ethical to pay an attacker to recover money?
For many, it's a ransom disguised as a "bug bounty"; for others, it's a necessary evil to protect thousands of users and prevent the protocol from going bust. Meanwhile, the price of the GMX token surged 4% in just a few hours after the agreement was announced.
It all started just a week ago, when GMX users detected suspicious activity in some liquidity pools. The feared events were soon confirmed: a hacker had exploited a vulnerability in one of the protocol's smart contracts, draining nearly $12 million USD** in several linked transactions, using bridges and mixers to make it difficult to trace.
The community immediately mobilized. Developers paused certain features, released emergency updates, and launched a public offering: "If you return the funds, you'll keep a portion as a reward and there will be no formal complaint." This strategy—controversial but increasingly common in DeFi—aims to resolve exploits without costly litigation or the threat of losing everything. According to statements posted on Discord by one of the core developers, the hacker agreed to keep 30% of the original loot as a "bug bounty," returning the remainder to GMX's treasury. This move prevented a liquidity crisis that could have spread to other interconnected protocols.
The case quickly divided opinions: is crime rewarded, or are hackers incentivized to report critical flaws without total destruction? Legal experts warn that these agreements, while pragmatic, operate in a gray area: there are no guarantees that future exploits will follow "good faith" rules.
For now, GMX has promised to strengthen external audits and improve its bounty program to hunt down bugs before malicious attackers do. Meanwhile, the DeFi community is taking note: no smart contract is foolproof, but how you respond to a hack can make the difference between survival and disappearing.
Opinion on the topic:
I see this case as a brutal reminder: no contract is invulnerable, nor is code free of errors. I applaud GMX's swift reaction, but I confess that it always leaves me with a bitter feeling to see how paying security breaches has become normalized. On the one hand, it prevents massive losses and protects honest users. On the other, it sends an ambiguous message: "If you hack, you can still negotiate your reward."
My advice: more audits, more well-structured bounty programs, and a vigilant community that reports bugs before they become media exploits. DeFi has a future, but only if everyone—devs, users, and investors—understands that security is as important as innovation.
💬 Do you think it's right to pay a hacker to recover stolen funds? Do these agreements strengthen or weaken the credibility of DeFi? What would you do if you were responsible for a compromised protocol?
Leave your comment...