EVM or Poor Security? The Debate Over Bybit’s $1.4B Loss

Crypto News Exploits

EVM or Poor Security? The Debate Over Bybit’s $1.4 Billion Loss

Written by Aaron S.,

Editor-In-Chief

Last Updated: February 24, 2025

Key Takeaways

Adam Back blames Ethereum’s Virtual Machine for repeated hacks, including the $1.4 billion hack at Bybit;
Back argues that EVM security failures hurt trust in the crypto industry and negatively impact Bitcoin’s reputation;
Critics say the Bybit hack was due to poor security practices, not EVM flaws.

Stop overpaying - start transferring money with Ogvio. Sign up, invite friends & grab Rewards now! 🎁

EVM or Poor Security? The Debate Over Bybit’s $1.4 Billion Loss

BITDEGREE IN YOUR SOCIAL FEED

Adam Back, co-founder of Blockstream, has criticized Ethereum’s ETH $3,042.27 Virtual Machine (EVM), arguing that its design is responsible for repeated security breaches, including the recent $1.4 billion hack at Bybit $1.2B .

Following the hack, Back took to X on February 22 to describe the technology as “complex, fragile, and blind-signed”.

"Another day, another EVM contract hack”, he wrote in another post, adding that billions have been lost over the years due to these issues.

What is SushiSwap? DEX & Sushi Token Animated Explainer

Did you know?

Want to get smarter & wealthier with crypto?

Subscribe - We publish new crypto explainer videos every week!

Back believes these security failures damage trust in the crypto industry, including Bitcoin BTC $89,523.42 .

He said in a February 24 post on X, "People are misunderstanding critique of repeated EVM hacks, the latest and the largest Bybit $1.4 billion missing the point: EVM can go to zero, no one cares. The problem is the EVM dumpster fire hurts ecosystem credibility, which unfairly bleeds over to Bitcoin".

However, not everyone agrees with this view. Some argue that the Bybit hack was not caused by EVM flaws but rather by poor security measures, especially in handling multi-signature wallets. They point out that strong operational security can prevent such breaches, regardless of the underlying technology.

Back countered that Ethereum’s transaction verification process is fundamentally flawed. He explained that hardware wallets are supposed to confirm transaction details on-screen before approval, but EVM’s complexity makes this difficult.

He also noted that in Bybit’s case, addresses did not appear on hardware wallet screens, which made verification nearly impossible.

Meanwhile, Elliptic reported on the process used by the Lazarus Group, the hackers behind the Bybit hack, to cover their tracks. How? Read the full story.