2026-01-14 22:28:36

A yield farming protocol suffered a staggering $4 million loss on a single swap operation due to inadequate slippage protection settings. The transaction executed without predetermined slippage limits, resulting in severe price impact and significant capital drain. This incident highlights the critical importance of implementing proper risk controls in DeFi trading, particularly when executing large-volume swaps on liquidity pools. The protocol's oversight serves as a stark reminder that even established projects can face devastating losses without meticulous transaction parameter validation.

DEFI-1,21%

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.

20 Likes

Reward
20
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

LayerZeroHero

· 01-16 23:30

4 million USD just gone like that, no slippage protection set? The facts prove that even the biggest projects can crash.

View OriginalReply0

RugPullAlarm

· 01-16 20:17

4 million USD lost in a single slippage? Not even setting a basic slippage limit? That's some seriously poor risk management. I'll just check the contract code...

View OriginalReply0

MEVictim

· 01-14 22:52

Oh my god, another four million lost just because the slippage settings weren't properly configured? This is really outrageous... Big projects can fail, how can we small retail investors survive?

View OriginalReply0

StakeWhisperer

· 01-14 22:50

Damn, 4 million just disappeared like that. Didn't you check the slippage settings at all?

View OriginalReply0

StablecoinArbitrageur

· 01-14 22:36

ngl, this is just textbook risk management failure. no slippage tolerance on a $4m swap? that's not even trading, that's donating to the pool. been backtesting similar scenarios (n=5000) and the correlation between proper params and avoiding rekt is basically 1.0. classic institutional blunder dressed up as "protocol oversight"

Reply0

LostBetweenChains