#钱包安全漏洞 Seeing Trust Wallet's $6 million big hole this time, I feel a bit heavy-hearted. It's not because the issue is so big, but because this pattern is all too familiar.

Looking back to 2022, I personally witnessed several critical moments regarding the security of plugin wallets. At that time, the Demonic vulnerability swept through MetaMask and Phantom, with private keys exposed in memory. I remember many people in the group asking whether they should continue using them. Later, Trust Wallet itself revealed a WebAssembly vulnerability, which only caused $170,000 in damages, but their attitude of providing compensation actually gained trust. Three years later, looking at the incident with version 2.68, it feels like history is repeating itself on some level.

But a careful analysis of the data reveals that the core problem is quietly changing. Over the years, the number of direct official vulnerabilities in plugin wallets has actually decreased. The real cause of major disasters isn't the code itself, but those counterfeit applications and phishing schemes. MetaMask has not reported any direct security vulnerabilities since 2023, yet incidents of user theft have surged. The reason is fake software and phishing attacks. The outbreak in the Firefox store was the best proof of this.

I've seen too many projects go from having a solid technical defense to falling into market traps. Trust Wallet holds 35% market share with 17 million monthly active users, making it a prime target. Hackers have become smarter, no longer fighting the official code head-on, but instead attacking supply chains and user behavior. How the official wallet defends itself, how fake software is copied; how security alerts are issued, how phishing links are precisely targeted—this is an unequal arms race.

Looking back now, from the bug bounty programs of 2022 to the collective lawsuit wave of 2025, the entire ecosystem is shedding its skin. Some projects have learned to provide quick compensation and transparent communication, while others blame each other in court for responsibility. Phantom's statement "Non-custodial wallets, responsibility lies with the user" is not wrong on the surface, but if users can't even distinguish real from fake, no matter how strong the logic, trust cannot be sustained.

Returning to the present, my advice is quite simple: the official channels on the Chrome Web Store are the only reliable fortress. But the problem is, those who understand this principle often only survived the 2017 bear market. The real ones who need protection are the newcomers. Every such incident pushes more people toward custodial exchanges. Ironically, this is actually the initial solution to such problems. Sometimes, the trajectory of history is just so strange.