【CryptoWorld】An outrageous trading incident has occurred on YO Protocol on Ethereum. Someone attempted to exchange approximately $3.84 million worth of stkGHO but only received $122,000 USDC—incredible to see such a devaluation.
BlockSec’s monitoring report points out two issues. First, the output quote submitted by the trader had a problem, effectively turning off the slippage protection mechanism. In other words, no minimum price limit was set, leaving the door open for market manipulation.
Even worse, there was an abnormal routing in the executePath parameter. The transaction did not go through the normal mainstream liquidity pools but was instead directed to pools with extremely high fees and low liquidity. As a result, the small pools couldn’t handle such a large order, leading to exorbitant fee extraction and a severe price slippage. This combination of issues turned users into victims of liquidation.
This incident also serves as a reminder: when interacting with DeFi protocols, pay attention to these details—slippage settings, routing parameters, and liquidity pool choices. A single mistake in any step can lead to significant losses.
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.
YO Protocol Ethereum abnormal transaction exposure: $3.84 million stkGHO loss behind slippage trap?
【CryptoWorld】An outrageous trading incident has occurred on YO Protocol on Ethereum. Someone attempted to exchange approximately $3.84 million worth of stkGHO but only received $122,000 USDC—incredible to see such a devaluation.
BlockSec’s monitoring report points out two issues. First, the output quote submitted by the trader had a problem, effectively turning off the slippage protection mechanism. In other words, no minimum price limit was set, leaving the door open for market manipulation.
Even worse, there was an abnormal routing in the executePath parameter. The transaction did not go through the normal mainstream liquidity pools but was instead directed to pools with extremely high fees and low liquidity. As a result, the small pools couldn’t handle such a large order, leading to exorbitant fee extraction and a severe price slippage. This combination of issues turned users into victims of liquidation.
This incident also serves as a reminder: when interacting with DeFi protocols, pay attention to these details—slippage settings, routing parameters, and liquidity pool choices. A single mistake in any step can lead to significant losses.