On April 19, 2026, in the early morning of Eastern Eight Time, Kelp DAO's rsETH cross-chain bridge based on LayerZero was compromised during a meticulously exploited contract call, becoming the focus of attention across the network. The attacker exploited an abnormal call to the lzReceive function in the LayerZero Endpoint V2 contract, "fabricating" approximately 116,500 rsETH on the target chain, leading to a financial loss of up to $292–293 million. This scale not only quickly topped the list of the largest DeFi attack events of 2026, but also starkly highlighted the vulnerabilities in the security of the LayerZero ecosystem and the trust framework of cross-chain bridges in front of developers and investors.

The Contract Black Box of the 116,500 rsETH Minting

The attack occurred at 1:35 AM on April 19, 2026 (original disclosure did not specify the time zone), targeting the rsETH cross-chain bridge built by Kelp DAO based on LayerZero Endpoint V2. The core function of this bridge is to map rsETH positions across different chains through cross-chain messages, while Endpoint V2, as the underlying entry point for message sending and executing, should have been the key gate for security isolation and access control.

Public information shows that the attacker specifically focused on this entry: by abnormally calling the lzReceive function, they induced the cross-chain bridge to erroneously release cross-chain messages on the target chain, turning the cross-chain minting logic, which should have stringent collateral and accounting constraints, into a process of "creating something out of nothing." As a result, about 116,500 rsETH were directly minted without corresponding asset support, corresponding to a market value of approximately $292–293 million, instantly tearing apart the asset and liability balance of Kelp DAO.

It is important to emphasize that the specific forms of vulnerabilities within the LayerZero Endpoint V2, how the call paths were exploited, and other technical details have not been publicly disclosed. Any finer-grained exploration around how the lzReceive was "abnormally triggered" falls outside the scope of established facts, cannot be verified, and should not be circulated as conclusions. Likewise, the individual or organizational background of the attacker is completely within a zone of information void.

$250 Million Cashed Out from On-Chain Debt to Real Money

If the creation of 116,500 rsETH is a black hole on the books, then efficiently converting these tokens into transferable, concealable mainstream assets is the key step where the attacker truly realized profits. On-chain data shows that after acquiring a massive amount of rsETH, the attacker quickly took two parallel paths to convert the inflated positions into substantial assets of approximately 106,466 ETH.

One path involved using large amounts of rsETH as collateral deposited into lending protocols like Aave, borrowing ETH against the book value of the rsETH before these protocols fully recognized the risks. In this model, the lending protocol viewed the counterfeit rsETH as compliant collateral, creating potential bad debts, while the attacker cashed out by leaving with the borrowed ETH. The other path was a more direct market sell-off: offloading rsETH in the secondary market for ETH with better liquidity and depth.

Amid the intertwining of these two paths, the attacker ultimately accumulated approximately 106,466 ETH, which, at the then market price, was about $250 million. This scale of cashing out not only substantially drained the value support within the Kelp DAO system but also exerted pressure on market liquidity in a short time—on one hand, there was the selling pressure and discount expectations from rsETH, and on the other, the risk assets passively taken on by the lending protocols.

Notably, Kelp DAO's subsequent activation of emergency mechanisms became one of the few "stop-loss highlights" of this incident. According to official data, the project's emergency halt operation prevented about 40,000 rsETH from being further utilized, which, at the then price estimate, corresponded to a potential additional loss of approximately $100 million being intercepted outside the system. This action did not recover the $250 million already cashed out but at least avoided further widening of the wound.

Multi-Protocol Emergency Braking Aave Inspects Bad Debts ApeChain Sounds System Alarm

As funds were quickly withdrawn, risks accelerated spreading throughout the entire DeFi ecosystem. The first to hit the brakes was the core party involved. Kelp DAO officially stated that it had suspended all rsETH contracts and joined LayerZero and security experts to analyze the causes of the incident. This meant that cross-chain, minting, burning, and certain interactive functions surrounding rsETH were urgently frozen, aiming to block the attack path and lock remaining risk exposure.

On the other hand, the lending giant Aave, widely used for cashing out and hedging, became a focal point of public debate. The Aave team stated, “The protocol itself was not exploited and is assessing potential bad debt risks”. This tone is focused on distinguishing between two completely different types of risk: "contract being compromised" and "collateral distortion": the former is when its own contract logic is exploited, while the latter is a balance sheet issue caused by misjudging the quality of external assets. Aave's current focus is on the potential scale of bad debts and liquidation paths formed by rsETH as collateral in its system, rather than the security of the contract itself.

Risk perception did not stop at individual protocols. ApeChain announced the suspension of all bridge functions relying on LayerZero, directly elevating the issue from a "single application incident" to a level of "cross-chain infrastructure risk." The signal conveyed by this action is very clear: any business relying on it for cross-chain asset transfer is theoretically in an uncertain risk zone until the security, message validation, and reception mechanisms of Endpoint V2 are clarified.

Surrounding lending and staking scenarios, other potentially related protocols have also been drawn into the risk control vision. Protocols like SparkLend, Fluid, and Lido, which have deep integration with rsETH or similar LSD, LRT assets in the market, find it hard to ignore this incident. Although current public information does not provide specific loss figures or scales of bad debts for these protocols, it is reasonable to expect that their risk control directions will unfold around several axes: one is to temporarily raise or lower the collateral ratios of related assets, two is to set stricter limits and whitelist strategies, and three is to accelerate the docking of risk control alerts and on-chain anomaly monitoring. Not involving unverified loss details essentially constitutes a systemic reassessment of "how to tighten dependence on cross-chain derivative assets."

Panic Index at 27 Points AAVE Drops 10% Emotional and Tracking Difficulties Amplified

Looking at the macro environment, on April 19, 2026, the crypto market panic index reported 27, indicating "panic territory" but not extreme panic. Yet it was against the backdrop of this seemingly relatively calm emotional state that the largest DeFi attack event of the year so far erupted, creating a stark contrast: indicators showed the market had not entered widespread panic, but the scale of a single event was enough to instantly redefine risk pricing.

The most direct emotional thermometer is the AAVE token, which is closely associated with the security of lending protocols. Following the event's escalation, AAVE recorded approximately a 10% drop in a single day, reflecting that the market's collective concerns about "whether the lending protocol will bear bad debts" and "whether the risk control model is sensitive enough" were rapidly incorporated into the price. Even though Aave emphasized that the contract itself was not exploited, the uncertainty surrounding the quality of the rsETH collateral and potential liquidation pressure still amplified selling pressure within a short time.

From the asset chain perspective, the massive sell-off of rsETH and the resulting selling pressure formed through lending and offloading were inevitably impacting the short-term sentiment for related assets like ETH and stETH. On one hand, the large amounts of ETH exchanged from the sale of rsETH might be further cashed out or hedged, triggering market expectations for short-term sell-offs; on the other hand, as rsETH is a restaking type of asset, its risk event could be "analogized" by some investors to other LSD and LRT assets, raising systemic risk premiums.

What worries the market even more is that the difficulty of tracking funds is accelerating. Briefings indicate that about 10 hours after the attack, Tornado Cash was used for fund transfers. This means that a significant portion of the cashed-out ETH started entering mixers, further obscuring on-chain paths and reducing the feasibility of subsequent tracking and freezing. For an already tense market sentiment, the fact that "funds are being laundered and moving away from visible sight" is often more impactful than the loss numbers themselves.

The Trust of LayerZero is on Trial, Cross-Chain Bridge Audit Methods Fail

Looking deeper, what is truly being put on trial in this incident is not just Kelp DAO or a specific cross-chain bridge instance, but the entire security model of the LayerZero ecosystem. Once the key functions in its message verification or reception processes (like lzReceive) are abused, it can expose all the protocols that rely on it for cross-chain minting and mapping to disasters on the level of "creating money out of thin air."

The reason why cross-chain bridges are seen as high-risk infrastructure is precisely because they hold the high authority to "create a shadow of your assets on another chain." Once message verification is bypassed or reception logic is fabricated, the balance sheets of bridged assets can immediately become distorted — the rsETH incident is a typical case: messages were erroneously released, and the target chain treated nonexistent cross-chain assets as real inputs and subsequently minted new tokens with no collateral backing.

In reality, the auditing work of most cross-chain bridges and related protocols still focuses on single-chain contracts and formal verification: checking whether there are classic problems such as reentrancy, overflow, or permission abuse within the contract logic of a single chain, while relatively neglecting the complexity of cross-chain message channels — including the roles of multi-signatures, oracles, message relayers, and how cross-chain permissions are distributed among different contracts and components. The more layered and modular a cross-chain system is, the more potential attack surfaces can be obscured by "split audits."

Following this incident, an increasingly unavoidable proposition is that future security work must upgrade from traditional "contract auditing" to a broader "cross-chain system auditing." Such audits must cover business contracts on various chains and systematically assess:

● Oracle and Message Relay Mechanisms: who is signing, who is relaying, how fault tolerance and punishment mechanisms are designed, and what cascading consequences will be triggered in the event of a single point of failure;

● Permission and Emergency Switch Design: which contracts/roles have the authority to pause cross-chain, limit amounts, and freeze specific message channels, and whether emergency processes are clear and verifiable by outsiders;

● Cross-Chain State Consistency and Anomaly Detection: how the states of the source chain and target chain are compared and whether an automatic alarm and circuit breaker can be triggered immediately in case of inconsistencies.

After Endpoint V2 was involved in this attack, LayerZero must provide not only a post-event technical review but also a set of system-level security commitments looking to the future.

After the $290 Million Lesson, How Should Cross-Chain Security be Reconstructed?

This rsETH attack, causing a loss of approximately $292–293 million, has gone beyond the scope of a single project incident and evolved into a collective shock surrounding the trust relationship among Kelp DAO, LayerZero, and DeFi lending protocols. For Kelp DAO, the asset credibility and restaking narrative of rsETH suffered a heavy blow; for LayerZero, the security of Endpoint V2 has been placed under the scrutiny of the entire ecosystem; and for lending protocols like Aave, this serves as a lesson on "how to identify the real risks of cross-chain derivative assets."

It can be anticipated that project teams and infrastructure providers will likely push forward on several paths synchronously in the upcoming period: one is upgrading related contracts to strengthen the verification, throttling, and circuit breaker logic for cross-chain messages; two is introducing more precise limit controls on cross-chain limits and risk exposure rather than simply relying on total locked amounts to judge security boundaries; and three is establishing more real-time risk control alerts and on-chain anomaly monitoring systems that can trigger responses within minutes in case of abnormal minting, unusual collateralization, or concentrated liquidation actions. As for concrete issues like compensation arrangements and recovery progress, current public information has not provided any reliable clues, and thus will not be elaborated on here.

For investors and protocol parties, the key signal conveyed by this incident is: cross-chain bridges are no longer "invisible underlying facilities." Whether deploying a type of restaked asset or integrating a certain cross-chain passage in the protocol, their security, message validation mechanisms, and emergency plans should be prioritized and viewed on par with even higher importance than yield rates. Simply treating cross-chain bridges as "the underlying layer has already taken care of it" premises has evidently proven untenable after a lesson amounting to $290 million.

As the largest DeFi attack to date in 2026, this rsETH incident is very likely to become a turning point for cross-chain security regulation and industry self-discipline. Whether it be compliance requirements from regulatory agencies or industry standards promoted by leading protocols and security companies, there is momentum to accelerate progress in directions such as "system-level audits," "cross-chain limit regulation," and "high-privilege infrastructure registration." The crypto industry has always been adept at iterating security concepts after disasters, and this time, the cost has been clearly recorded on the blockchain ledger.

Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram group: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh

OKX Benefit Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefit Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。