Uranium Finance Logic Bug

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!

Uranium Finance

Uranium Finance is an automated market maker which provides users with the opportunity to also act like shareholders.

The smart contract which they launched had a vulnerability, and was exploited by a hacker to steal the rewards which would have been distributed to users.

The hacker liquidated the funds, but was able to be identified through blockchain analysis. They agreed to return the largest portion of the funds in exchange for not being pursued legally.

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

About Uranium Finance

Uranium Finance is "The daily dividends AMM". They "believe the answer is to simply return the majority of the profits to [their] users : make them shareholders instead of only liquidity providers."

"In the current DeFi world, the same problem is encountered by many AMMs : the token value collapses, tends to 0, and the use of DEX decreases before it stops completely. Many strategies have been attempted to avoid this pitfall (layered farming, exotic burning mechanisms..), but none have succeeded, until now." "Uranium is the first AMM platform to implement a concept of this type that has won us all over: Imagine being a shareholder of your favourite AMM, stake and receive dividends ? Uranium made it happen with its RADS token and we explain how it works."

"The attacker drained RADS/sRADS rewards tokens from the vulnerable contract and sold them for $1.3M worth of BUSD and BNB." "On the 8th April around 00:30 UTC, an exploiter was able to constantly grab the contents of the RADS pool and all of the RADS/sRADS rewards and sell them for $1.3Mil worth of BUSD and BNB. This drastically dumped the price of RADS and the exploiter then transferred the BUSD and BNB to his wallet."

"As soon as we received the information regarding the exploit, we immediat[e]ly alerted our community on Telegram and tried to respond to everybody’s concerns. At the same time, our team was hard at work trying to find the best solutions."

"We could identify the wallet of the exploiter and saw that the initial funds transferred on it were directly coming from a Binance hot wallet, so that he could potentially be identified. We then launched a call on Twitter to Binance in order to help us. At the same time, we made a public request to the attacker to give him a way out of all of this, by sending us back the majority of what he stole, but keeping a part of what we called a “bug bounty”. Of course, we didn’t really like the idea of negotiating like this with the guy who stole the funds, but we judged that it was the best we could do in the interest of the Uranium platform, it’s investors, and the team."

"After some negotiation, he informed us he was ready to send us back $1,000,000 if we agreed to not take any further action against him and let him be. A few minutes later we got the funds back as ETH."

"Absolutely all of it will be sent to the money pots : a part of it will be distributed as dividends for the launch day of the v2, the rest will go into the bonus money pot, and will progressively be sent to the pending money pot. We still have to decide about the ideal repartition of the amounts yet between the two, and we’ll keep you informed about that."

"[T]he snapshot that will be used to get all the RADS and sRADS data will be at 1:00am UTC. We chose to use one a bit after the beginning of the attack, to be sure to reward users more rather than less." "You will be able to swap all of your RADS, no matter when they were bought. All of them will have a 1:1 ratio with the v2 RADS. Among the RADS you will swap, those that you were holding before the snapshot will be swapped with a 10% bonus (1:1.1 ratio)." "Pending rewards are lost. Some of you have lost several hours of farming and we apologize for this. We thought about everything we can, but we just have any way to get the needed information."

"Of course, we take full responsibility of this incident and apologize to all of you who joined the Uranium project. We have been privately audited before the launch and tried our best to avoid this kind of issue, but it was clearly not enough this time. This is definitely a hard-learned lesson."

"Now that the damage is done, and that the compensation plan is set, we know that the only way to redeem ourselves in the eye of our investors if by providing a v2 strong enough to get back to where it was." "The [Uranium V2] launch is planned for next week. We have learnt from our mistakes so first, we will make Uranium publicly audited. Our strategy is to release V2 as soon as possible but we’re aware that people can’t just give trust without some concrete material." "We still strongly believe that our model can be a new paradigm in the DeFI world, and that all of those that keep trusting us even in those dark times will definitely be rewarded!"

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 - Uranium Finance Logic Bug

Date	Event	Description
April 7th, 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 $1,500,000 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.