Defi100 Pretend Exit Scam

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' and 'General Prevention' sections 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!

Defi100

In this case, a hacker breached the Defi100 website and created a page which claimed an exit scam. A tweet claimed $32m was lost. The story spread quickly, even included in some mainstream news articles.

By the time the project had realized and provided an update, significant damage was done to the project reputation. The site has since been brought online, and apparently didn't even have $32m, although the "market cap" is reported above $80m on the Defi100 dashboard page.

It's likely that the exploit was undertaken to manipulate the token price and profit off the change.

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

About Defi100

"DEFI100 [describes itself as] the first synthetic asset on Binance smart chain, pegged to the total Defi market cap." "DEFI100-Rebase is an elastic supply synthetic index token based on the total market cap of the DeFi sector. Pegged at a ratio of 1:100 Billion, DEFI100 derives its data using decentralized oracles from DIA to maintain the accuracy of feeds and accurate rebases."

"DeFi100, a decentralized project (DeFi) project built on the Binance Smart Chain, has created a ton of controversy on Sunday as its website displayed the message: “We scammed you guys, and you can’t do s**t about it.”"

"Reports have claimed that people behind cryptocurrency project DeFi100 may have absconded with investor funds worth USD 32 million (approx Rs 233 crore). Such reports appeared after a message on the cryptocurrency project’s website – DeFi100.org – scared visitors with a message saying they had been “scammed” and that they can’t do anything about it."

"Initially, it was believed that the project scammed its investors for $32 million. The speculations were worsened as the project did not officially say anything about the message on its website for hours." "Some reports put the market cap for the currency at an estimated $32 million. The method used to estimate this value has not been explained by any outlet or user."

"The website was hacked yesterday and the message was shown by the hackers. It has been taken down."

"It, however, acknowledged that the investors faced huge losses as the project failed to live up to the initial expectations. The token prices of the project also fell from its all-time high of above $3.5 in late February to around $0.08." "The native token of DeFi100, the D100, slipped 25% in valuation since the hacking news."

"Rumors of scamming for 32 million are false and baseless," the group tweeted. "“Yes, our investors faced huge losses as [the] project failed to achieve what we hoped for. But there is no exit scam and we are still working on finding a way to bring the project back on its feet,” the project stated."

"Website has been restored! More updates to be followed."

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 - Defi100 Pretend Exit Scam

Date	Event	Description
May 22nd, 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 $32,000,000 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?

General Prevention Policies

Having a regulatory framework is important not just to prevent loss but also to prevent panics. When there is greater visibility into the backing of platforms, and procedures in place for handling such situations, it's harder to create such fear.

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.