Close Menu
    Friday, January 2
    BNB

    CoinMarketCap removes allegedly fake SHIB wormhole addresses

    No Comments2 Mins Read

    Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /home/jg6njqe3qkj7/public_html/wp-content/themes/smart-mag/partials/single/featured.php on line 78

    Late Wednesday, Twitter user @shibainuart reported that CoinMarketCap had removed three listed Shiba Inu (SHIB) addresses on the Binance Smart Chain (BNB), Solana (SOL), and Terra (LUNA) blockchains. Only the ERC-20 (ETH) SHIB token is visible on the site at the time of publication. A massive firestorm brewed on Twitter about three weeks prior after Shiba Inu developers alleged that “CoinMarketCap has knowingly listed three fake contract addresses for SHIB. Do not interact with these addresses as your funds will be irreversibly lost.”

    In response, CoinMarketCap stated that the addresses were wormhole addresses designed to facilitate cross-chain transactions. While the addresses are gone, the warning can still be seen on the SHIB token main page on the site. CoinMarketCap has not issued a statement as to the reasons behind the removal of the wormhole addresses.

    The Shiba Inu developers appear to have acknowledged this explanation in a community letter published on Jan. 19. However, they also cited the potential risk vulnerabilities of cross-chain bridges. Last month, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin explained, due to scaling, 51% attacks on one single small-cap chain in a network of 100 interoperated blockchains could cause a system-wide contagion. Last week, the largest decentralized finance hack took place on cross-chain bridge Wormhole. Hackers fraudulently minted $321 million worth of wrapped Ether on Solana and transferred them onto the Ethereum network for redemption. 

    In addition, the developers believed that CoinMarketCap behaved unprofessionally during their correspondence, for example, in their lack of communication and use of “display of erroneous contracts,” “incorrect social media links,” “incorrect display of circulating supply,” etc., as reasons for standing by the claim that the contracts are “fake.”