Another Bridge Hack: 10 Million Tokens Minted Without a Single Deposit
- Published
Cysic suspended its cross-chain bridge after an attacker minted 10 million unauthorized CYS on BNB Smart Chain. On-chain activity showed part of the supply moving toward Ethereum, while Cysic blacklisted the receiving address and said its mainnet and user-wallet assets were not touched.
Key claims & sources
What it means
The breach let the attacker mint 10 million CYS with no deposit behind them, then convert 7.2 million of that into 306.6 ETH, worth about $727,000, before Cysic could react. Holders and the team now face a suspended bridge, a blacklisted receiving address holding roughly 2.8 million frozen CYS, and no current path to move CYS across chains until the flawed mint-message handling is fixed. Mainnet users and existing wallet balances were untouched, but the token's circulating supply integrity is now in question.
A preliminary finding of a breached database points to a basic operational failure, not a cryptographic one: the bridge trusted messages it should have independently verified. That a team can unilaterally blacklist an address and freeze funds also shows how much centralised control still sits behind bridges marketed as trust-minimised infrastructure. The real tension is between the promise of permissionless cross-chain transfer and the reality that a single compromised database can create tokens from nothing. (per crypto-news-flash.com)
Cysic has not yet published a final loss figure or a full post-mortem on the database breach behind the unauthorised mint. Whether the frozen 2.8 million CYS at the blacklisted address can be clawed back, and whether the bridge reopens with new message-verification safeguards, will determine how much damage the incident leaves behind. The $727,000 already converted to ETH on Ethereum remains the clearest unresolved loss on the table.
Market reaction i
Coverage timeline
Every piece in order, with the time its news medium declares — if it is not believable we use ours and say so — and what it added to what was already known at that point. Arriving first is not the same as adding something.
Thefts of a similar size
| When | What happened | Figure |
|---|---|---|
| 1.3 years ago | SuperRare · Access control incident | $730k |
| 3.7 years ago | DungeonSwap · Contract vulnerability incident | $728k |
| 11.7 years ago | KipCoin · Private Key Compromised incident | $728k |
| 4.6 years ago | Auctus · Arbitrary call incident | $726k |
| 2.0 years ago | 1inch Swap · Supply chain attack incident | $723k |
4280 incidents stored · 1041 were as large as this one or larger ($727k)