On January 20, on-chain security monitoring revealed that the DeFi platform MakinaFi had suffered a hacker attack on the Ethereum network. Approximately 1,299 ETH were illicitly transferred, resulting in losses of around USD 4.13 million based on market prices at the time. The incident occurred within a short time frame, with the anomalous transactions completed rapidly, and there were no indications of cross-chain or multi-network coordinated attacks.
Attack Process and Transaction Characteristics
According to on-chain data, some transactions during the attack were front-run by MEV addresses. This suggests that the attacker leveraged Ethereum’s transaction ordering mechanisms, allowing certain asset transfer operations to be prioritized during block packaging. As a result, the speed of fund movement was accelerated, significantly narrowing the window for external intervention.
Current Status of the Stolen Funds
Monitoring data indicates that the stolen ETH is currently distributed across two separate addresses. One address holds funds valued at approximately USD 3.3 million, while the other contains around USD 880,000. Compared with previous attacks involving complex arbitrage paths or multi-chain hops, the fund flows in this incident appear relatively concentrated. However, there remains a risk of subsequent splitting or further obfuscation.
Differences from Other DeFi Attack Incidents
It is important to note that the MakinaFi incident is not the same as the previously disclosed case involving a “multi-chain DeFi execution engine project attacked with losses exceeding USD 5.1 million on Ethereum.” The two incidents differ significantly in terms of project type, scale of losses, and attack vectors. The MakinaFi attack did not involve multi-chain coordination or cross-network execution logic, but was confined to a single Ethereum network environment.
Compliance and Risk Governance Perspective
As DeFi applications continue to grow in complexity, attackers are no longer limited to exploiting isolated vulnerabilities. Instead, they increasingly combine smart contract flaws, transaction mechanics, and network-level game strategies to carry out attacks. For platforms and institutional participants, post-incident analysis of fund flows, address linkages, and anomalous transaction patterns has become a critical component of risk governance. In reviewing such incidents, some institutions leverage on-chain monitoring systems such as Trustformer KYT to conduct structured identification of fund behavior, supporting internal compliance reviews and risk assessments.
Conclusion
The MakinaFi attack once again highlights that the Ethereum DeFi ecosystem, despite its high liquidity and sophistication, continues to face tangible security challenges. Continuous monitoring of transaction behavior and systematic on-chain analysis are increasingly becoming foundational tools for the industry to understand risks and strengthen governance frameworks.