Hacker attack on Abracadabra.Money: 13 million dollars in ETH stolen 25 March 2025

Abracadabra.Money, a decentralized lending platform, experienced a cyber attack that resulted in the loss of approximately 13 million dollars in Ethereum (ETH).

The attack, aimed at pools linked to GMX tokens, has raised questions about the security of the platform. However, GMX has denied any vulnerabilities in its smart contracts.

 

Summary

Details of the attack on Abracadabra.Money: 6,260 ETH stolen

According to the cybersecurity company PeckShield, on March 25, 6,260 ETH, equivalent to about 13 million dollars, were stolen from the contracts linked to Abracadabra.Money and the GMX pools.

The incident follows a previous attack that occurred at the end of January 2024, which had caused a loss of 6.49 million dollars and compromised the peg of the Magic Internet Money (MIM) token to the value of the US dollar.

The attack highlighted possible vulnerabilities in the Abracadabra.Money contracts, although doubts remain about the involvement of GMX.

Despite the initial hypotheses suggesting that the flaw was in the contratti GMX, a member of the platform’s communication team clarified that “the contracts of GMX have not been compromised.”

The exponent explained that the GMX smart contracts were mentioned only because the MIM pools use pool GMX v2.

GMX then released an official statement on X, specifying that the attack exclusively affected the MIM pools based on GM tokens. The platform stated:

“We believe that the problem is solely related to the Abracadabra/Spell cauldrons. These cauldrons allow borrowing against specific GM liquidity tokens.”

This stance exempts GMX from any direct involvement in the vulnerability, leaving Abracadabra.Money alone in managing the consequences of the attack.

Analysis of the attack: use of Tornado Cash and bridge to Ethereum

The blockchain analysis company AMLBot has partially reconstructed the modus operandi of the hackers. According to the investigations:

  • – The first funding of the hacker’s wallet occurred through Tornado Cash, a decentralized mixer that allows obscuring the origin of criptovalute.
  • – Subsequently, the funds were used to cover the fees of the malevolent transactions.
  • – Once the operation was completed, the 6,260 ETH rubati were transferred from the Arbitrum network to Ethereum through a blockchain bridge.

AMLBot also confirmed that only the Abracadabra.Money contracts were breached, while the GMX smart contracts were not compromised during the attack.

This attack represents an additional challenge for the world of decentralized finance (DeFi), one of the areas most exposed to hacking risks. With more and more platforms based on smart contracts, security remains one of the main concerns for investors and developers.

Abracadabra.Money had already experienced a breach in January 2024, which resulted in a loss of nearly 6.5 million dollars and a destabilization of the MIM token.

This new attack further tests the platform’s ability to ensure protection for users.

GMX, for its part, reiterated that its contracts have not been breached, trying to dispel any doubts about the security of its platform.

The management of communication by the companies involved will be crucial to maintain user trust and limit the repercussions on the market.

Conclusions

The attack on Abracadabra.Money has once again highlighted the risks of DeFi, a rapidly growing sector but vulnerable to cyber attacks. The loss of 13 million dollars in ETH represents a significant blow for the platform and its users.

The investigations by PeckShield and AMLBot have clarified that the flaw lies in the contracts of Abracadabra.Money, while GMX seems to be unrelated.

However, the incident raises important questions about the security of interactions between DeFi protocols and the need for greater protection against exploits and malicious attacks.

Abracadabra.Money will now have to face the consequences of the attack, implementing security measures to avoid future breaches and restore user trust in the protocol.

Related Posts

Deploying smart contracts on the Ethereum blockchain

First of all, one or more developers must obviously create the smart contract by writing the appropriate lines of code, and then they must send it to the Ethereum network.

In technical terms, publishing it on the Ethereum blockchain means making all the nodes in the network receive and execute it. Once published, all instructions in it will always be executed by all nodes in exactly the same way.

Therefore, not only its publication but also the execution of instructions is irreversible once it is published on the blockchain.

Therefore, what really matters are the instructions it contains – which can be the most diverse – and how many people use it. Indeed, in order for the instructions of a smart contract to actually be executed, there must be one or more transactions that invoke them.

It is also worth remembering that these instructions generally involve the use of resources, such as data or tokens, so for them to actually be executed, all the conditions set as necessary must be met. 

Sometimes this data comes from outside, thanks to so-called oracles, while sometimes it simply comes from transactions on the blockchain.

Usually, the transaction that triggers the execution of the instructions contained in a smart contract involves the payment of a fee in ETH, and in many cases in order to actually trigger the execution also involves the payment or sending of tokens specific to the smart contract itself, or other smart contracts.

Technically, smart contracts are a type of account on the Ethereum blockchain, “controlled” by the network rather than a central entity. They can store ETH or tokens, and can also send transactions on the network autonomously.

A contract in the Solidity language would be like a kind of union of a code (the functions) and data (its state) located at a specific address on the Ethereum blockchain. Each contract contains declarations of state variables, functions, function modifiers, data structures and events.

The MiCA regulation, which came into force with the aim of uniformly regulating the cryptocurrency sector within the European Union, imposes new conditions that particularly concern:

  • – The mandatory authorization of crypto service providers
  • – The transparency of whitepapers
  • – The reserve requirement for stablecoin issuers
  • – Surveillance on systemic risks

One of the main impacts is precisely on stablecoins, like USDT, which will have to demonstrate that they have solid, transparent, and accessible reserve assets.

The platforms that wish to maintain the trading of these tokens within the European market will need to ensure that the assets are fully compliant.

Leave a Reply