DeFiB Rug Pull

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.

DEFIBase

An anonymous development team launched the DEFIBase protocol, a smart contract which gave them full control over the token supply.

Instead of helping their users make a larger fortune, they decided to help themselves to all invested funds. This project was very small, so it was hard to determine the actual outcome.

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

About DEFIBase

"DEFIBase is a poorly built fork of the Base project. There was a problem with calling the Rebase function that returned the current token price to the initial one. The developers failed 280 transactions with a manual call to the price rebase function. The project team muted its chat and pulled 696 ETH from the general pool with several transactions" "made with ❤️ by Team DEFIBase"

"Rebasing is a crypto term popularized by Ampleforth. The basic idea is that the supply of a cryptocurrency can contract or expand based on demand, or certain price thresholds that traders must maintain."

"One coin, DeFiB, promised to be a rebasing coin based on Ethereum that would automatically gravitate toward the value of all DeFi tokens in circulation."

"Unfortunately, when the first rebase was slated to happen on Friday, it didn’t. The developers of the project suddenly went AWOL, deleting their Telegram and Twitter while users also noticed that around 600 ETH (~$300,000) worth of liquidity had been drained from the DeFiB pool."

"Weirdly, it appears that some of the lost funds were distributed back to those affected."

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 - DeFiB Rug Pull
Date	Event	Description
December 11th, 2020 12:00:00 AM	First Event	This is an expanded description of what happened and the impact. If multiple lines are necessary, add them here.

Total Amount Lost

The total amount lost is unknown.

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

It is unknown how much was recovered.

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?

Prevention Policies

Having known individuals controlling a multi-signature wallet prevents any one individual from making off with the funds. For proper security we recommend at least 3 signatures from reputable and trained individuals.