Mirror Protocol Governance Attack

Notice: This page is a freshly imported case study from the original repository. The original content was in a different format, and may not have relevant information for all sections. Please help restructure the content by moving information from the 'About' section to other sections, and add any missing information or sources you can find. If you are new here, please read General Tutorial on Wikis or Anatomy of a Case Study for help getting started.

Notice: This page contains sources which are not attributed to any text. The unattributed sources follow the initial description. Please assist by visiting each source, reviewing the content, and placing that reference next to any text it can be used to support. Feel free to add any information that you come across which isn't present already. Sources which don't contain any relevant information can be removed. Broken links can be replaced with versions from the Internet Archive. See General Tutorial on Wikis, Anatomy of a Case Study, and/or Citing Your Sources Guide for additional information. Thanks for your help!

Mirror Protocol

Mirror Protocol is a Terra project which allows the creation of synthetic assets that mirror other assets like stocks. The protocol uses a governance protocol. This protocol was attacked by creating a large number of malicious proposals that give funds to the attacker ($40m in total). There doesn't appear to be any indication that any funds were actually sent to the attackers.

This is a global/international case not involving a specific country.

About Mirror Protocol

"Mirror is a DeFi protocol powered by smart contracts on the Terra network that enables the creation of synthetic assets called Mirrored Assets (mAssets). mAssets mimic the price behavior of real-world assets and give traders anywhere in the world open access to price exposure without the burdens of owning or transacting real assets."

"The minting of mAssets is decentralized and is undertaken by users throughout the network by opening a position and depositing collateral. Mirror ensures that there is always sufficient collateral within the protocol to cover mAssets, and also manages markets for mAssets by listing them on Terraswap against UST."

"The Mirror Token (MIR) is minted by the protocol and distributed as a reward to reinforce behavior that secures the ecosystem. With it, Mirror ensures liquid mAsset markets by rewarding MIR to users who stake LP Tokens obtained through providing liquidity. Also to incentivize users to ensure mAssets to mimic the price behavior of real-world assets, users who stake sLP Tokens obtained through shorting mAssets are rewarded with MIR. MIR is valuable as it is can be staked to receive voting privileges and to earn a share of the protocol's CDP withdrawal fees."

"Mirror is a project developed and steered by its community: its markets are maintained by its own users through MIR incentives, and the protocol evolves with new ideas through democratic governance."

"Mirror Protocol is sufferring by a planned governance attack. The attacker launched a series of fake polls to defraud the $MIR token in the governance page. So far, the proposals 185, 198, 204, 206, 207, 208 are idenfied as scam proposals. Please try to vote NO on these polls. If attacker got success it might caused 30+ M worth $MIR tokens on Terra."

"A series of fraudulent polls have recently been launched against Mirror Protocol in an effort to steal tens of millions of dollars and bring it down." "The attackers are also flooding the governance page with fake polls in hopes that people cannot find polls like 185 and to confuse them. They have also timed their attacks to coincide with the Christmas and New Years holidays hoping to catch the MIR community sleeping and off-guard."

"The summation of MIR trying to be stolen via these attacks are worth over $40 million, or 1/3rd of the community pool."

This is a global/international case not involving a specific country.

The background of the exchange platform, service, or individuals involved, as it would have been seen or understood at the time of the events.

Include:

• Known history of when and how the service was started.
• What problems does the company or service claim to solve?
• What marketing materials were used by the firm or business?
• Audits performed, and excerpts that may have been included.
• Business registration documents shown (fake or legitimate).
• How were people recruited to participate?
• Public warnings and announcements prior to the event.

Don't Include:

• Any wording which directly states or implies that the business is/was illegitimate, or that a vulnerability existed.
• Anything that wasn't reasonably knowable at the time of the event.

There could be more than one section here. If the same platform is involved with multiple incidents, then it can be linked to a main article page.

The Reality

This sections is included if a case involved deception or information that was unknown at the time. Examples include:

• When the service was actually started (if different than the "official story").
• Who actually ran a service and their own personal history.
• How the service was structured behind the scenes. (For example, there was no "trading bot".)
• Details of what audits reported and how vulnerabilities were missed during auditing.

What Happened

The specific events of the loss and how it came about. What actually happened to cause the loss and some of the events leading up to it.

Key Event Timeline - Mirror Protocol Governance Attack

Date	Event	Description
December 25th, 2021	Main Event	Expand this into a brief description of what happened and the impact. If multiple lines are necessary, add them here.

Technical Details

This section includes specific detailed technical analysis of any security breaches which happened. What specific software vulnerabilities contributed to the problem and how were they exploited?

Total Amount Lost

The total amount lost has been estimated at $40,000,000 USD.

How much was lost and how was it calculated? If there are conflicting reports, which are accurate and where does the discrepancy lie?

Immediate Reactions

How did the various parties involved (firm, platform, management, and/or affected individual(s)) deal with the events? Were services shut down? Were announcements made? Were groups formed?

Ultimate Outcome

What was the end result? Was any investigation done? Were any individuals prosecuted? Was there a lawsuit? Was any tracing done?

Total Amount Recovered

There do not appear to have been any funds recovered in this case.

What funds were recovered? What funds were reimbursed for those affected users?

Ongoing Developments

What parts of this case are still remaining to be concluded?

Individual Prevention Policies

No specific policies for individual prevention have yet been identified in this case.

For the full list of how to protect your funds as an individual, check our Prevention Policies for Individuals guide.

Platform Prevention Policies

Policies for platforms to take to prevent this situation have not yet been selected in this case.

For the full list of how to protect your funds as a financial service, check our Prevention Policies for Platforms guide.

Regulatory Prevention Policies

No specific regulatory policies have yet been identified in this case.

For the full list of regulatory policies that can prevent loss, check our Prevention Policies for Regulators guide.