This week, during East 8 Time, the FutureSwap protocol deployed on the Arbitrum chain was reported to have suffered another smart contract reentrancy attack. According to technical details disclosed by the security team, the attacker exploited a reentrancy vulnerability in the contract while providing liquidity, allowing them to mint an excessive amount of LP tokens that should not exist, and then exchange these "fabricated" tokens for real assets through subsequent processes. Preliminary estimates from a single security monitoring source indicate that the financial loss from this attack is approximately $74,000, a figure that may still be subject to correction or updates. The key issue of the event is not the absolute amount of loss, but rather that the same protocol has encountered a similar security problem and has again failed under similar logic, once more highlighting the weak defenses against reentrancy attacks in the DeFi space.

Three Steps to Cash Out: The Silent Play of Minting and Waiting for Redemption

From the attack path perspective, this was a carefully choreographed "three-step" silent play: first minting, then waiting, and finally redeeming. The starting point occurred during the liquidity provision phase, where the attacker interacted with the protocol, taking advantage of the time lag when the contract had not fully updated its internal state during a single call to initiate reentrancy. Under normal logic, users deposit assets proportionally, the contract records the position and mints an equivalent amount of LP tokens; however, in the reentrancy scenario, the attacker can repeatedly trigger the minting logic before the state has been correctly settled, creating the illusion that assets are already in place, and thus receive LP tokens far exceeding the actual collateral, achieving the first phase of "empty-handed asset acquisition."

The second phase is a quiet but crucial waiting period. FutureSwap introduced a cooling period of about 3 days in its design, aimed at limiting rapid liquidity inflows and outflows, and suppressing short-term risk fluctuations. However, in this attack, this originally risk-control safety valve was transformed into a time buffer for the attacker. The excessively minted LP tokens lay silently on-chain for several days, appearing no different from other legitimate LP holdings, triggering no regular monitoring alerts and making it difficult to quickly identify through single transaction analysis.

The third phase is when the funds truly escape. After the cooling period ends, the attacker begins executing the redemption operation, burning the previously fabricated large amount of LP tokens to extract real collateral assets from the protocol pool. Since the contract defaults to trusting the "authenticity" of the LP token balance in the redemption logic and allocates underlying assets based on their face value, the entire process appears on-chain as a seemingly normal LP exit operation. BlockSec's Phalcon platform defines this model as a "delayed cash-out reentrancy attack," emphasizing that the attack is not completed within a single block but spans multiple days, extending the risk from an instantaneous explosion to a slow cash-out, significantly enhancing its concealment.

The Same Protocol Stumbles Again: Why Audits Fail

FutureSwap had previously been pointed out by external parties for having related logical security vulnerabilities, and now it has once again stumbled due to reentrancy issues on Arbitrum, making "repeated explosions" an unavoidable fact. The audit reports and security tools that the industry generally relies on should, to some extent, cover such fundamental logical vulnerabilities, but the reality is that the same protocol has repeatedly stumbled on the classic attack surface of reentrancy, exposing the structural limitations of audit effectiveness.

In the actual development rhythm, protocol teams often continuously iterate on business logic: adding on-chain deployments, expanding derivative categories, and adjusting market-making and incentive mechanisms. Audits typically exist in the form of "point sampling," focusing on a specific version, upgrade, or newly added module for in-depth inspection. In this model, older modules that were previously considered "reviewed" can easily expose previously untriggered risks under the combination of new business, new parameters, and new interaction paths, resulting in a "new cracks in old wounds" situation. Reentrancy itself is not new; the complexity lies in its ability to reappear in new forms after different calling sequences, state machine branches, and cooling and settlement strategies are layered.

From this incident, it can be seen that the attention of development teams and audit institutions is mostly focused on the explicit issue of "whether new features are safe," while insufficient attention is paid to the coupling risks of existing components in new scenarios. The cooling period, LP minting, and redemption should be viewed as a whole state machine for verification, but they are fragmented across different audit cycles and module responsibility boundaries, leading to a lack of systematic coverage of the combined behavioral space. As protocols move towards multi-chain deployment and business becomes increasingly complex, if audits remain at the level of version snapshot inspections rather than continuous validation, similar logical errors will repeatedly emerge after "skin changes," making them difficult to avoid.

Upgraded Reentrancy Attacks: From Instant Flash Loans to Extended Timeframes

If we trace back to the early history of DeFi attacks, reentrancy is often associated with flash loans: attackers borrow large amounts of funds within a single block, exploiting a one-time reentrancy vulnerability to drain the liquidity pool in a short time, and then repay the flash loan before the block ends to complete the loop. The characteristic of this "instantaneous" attack is that all anomalies occur almost simultaneously, leaving an extremely limited window for monitoring and response, but it is also relatively concentrated, making it easier to trace back and identify patterns around a single or a few suspicious transactions.

The "delayed cash-out" reentrancy marked by Phalcon shows a clear evolution in its time structure. The introduction of cooling periods and delayed redemptions, originally seen as safety designs, breaks the attack behavior into multiple independent, time-dispersed actions: the abnormal minting from some time ago and the normal redemption days later are not adjacent in the on-chain records, making it difficult for traditional risk control and security scanning, which rely on single transaction characteristics, to associate the two in real-time. With the attack chain extended, the attacker gains more room for trial and error, allowing them to choose the timing for cashing out based on market fluctuations and community reactions, further reducing the probability of being detected and blocked in real-time.

From a cost-benefit perspective, the loss scale of this FutureSwap incident is about $74,000, which is not considered a "top-tier achievement" compared to large DeFi vulnerabilities that can reach tens of millions of dollars. However, precisely because the amount is not exaggerated, the attacker's strategy seems more like an "experiment" for a new type of attack paradigm—testing the protocol's sensitivity to time-extended reentrancy and probing the recognition thresholds of security teams and on-chain monitoring tools. As contract states become increasingly complex and cross-module calls become more frequent, the time dimension and state machine complexity are moving from the background to the forefront, becoming a new battleground for DeFi security.

Is a $74,000 Loss Not Significant? Trust in the Protocol is Key

For the large-scale DeFi ecosystem, a loss of about $74,000 is not eye-catching in absolute terms, especially since this figure currently comes from a single security monitoring source and may be subject to revision or correction in the future. However, from the perspective of retail investors and ordinary LPs, such "small to medium-sized incidents" often have more destructive power: the amount is not large, information is scattered, and the official response and accountability pace is slow, making it easier to accumulate a vague but persistent sense of security anxiety within the community.

For FutureSwap itself, repetitive security incidents will directly impact its position and voice within the Arbitrum ecosystem. The competition in the derivatives and leveraged trading track on Arbitrum is fierce, and the switching costs for users between multiple protocols are not high. When a protocol frequently faces security issues, even if the loss amount is limited each time, it will invisibly raise its "implicit risk premium" in the minds of users: the speed of new funds entering slows down, old users are more inclined to shorten their holding periods or reduce single pool exposure, and governance proposals and innovative features are also harder to gain widespread endorsement.

On a broader emotional level within the DeFi space, the accumulation of such events can create a sense of "security fatigue." Users have become accustomed to seeing various attack reports of varying sizes in the information flow, gradually sliding from shock and anger to numbness, while quietly tightening their risk exposure to high-complexity protocols in actual operations. For the entire industry, this invisible loss of trust may ultimately manifest as decreased trading depth, reduced long-term liquidity supply, and a natural skepticism towards new protocols and models.

Systematic Security Reflection Starting from FutureSwap

The reentrancy attack on FutureSwap on Arbitrum presents an age-old issue in a new way to the industry: the traditional notion of reentrancy flaws, when combined with time dimension designs such as cooling periods and delayed redemptions, can amplify into systemic risks that are difficult to identify and defend against in a timely manner. This is not just a lapse in code review by a single team, but a shortcoming in the entire DeFi security engineering in terms of thinking paradigms and tool stacks.

For the protocol side, what is needed in the future is not just localized fixes for a specific function or logic, but systematic, formal verification and continuous auditing of all "delayed cash-out" processes. The entire state machine involving LP minting, yield accumulation, cooling periods, and redemption should be modeled and deduced as a whole, rather than being split into multiple isolated modules that are only briefly focused on around version releases. In an environment where multi-chain deployment and frequent upgrades have become the norm, establishing a long-term internal security baseline and regression testing system is more critical than a one-time "pre-launch audit."

For security companies, audit institutions, and on-chain monitoring tools, there is also a need to upgrade from "single-attack detection" to "cross-time-series behavior recognition." Future attacks will no longer be limited to single-block flashes but are more likely to brew and cash out slowly over days, weeks, or even across versions. How to capture the hidden connections between abnormal LP minting and subsequent redemptions within seemingly ordinary transaction flows, and how to identify potential delayed reentrancy paths on state transition graphs, will become key indicators in the next phase of competition for security infrastructure.

The final outcome of this FutureSwap incident has yet to be fully revealed, and how to handle losses, fix vulnerabilities, and rebuild community trust remains to be observed. However, it is foreseeable that such "old vulnerabilities with new play" attacks will continue to push the DeFi industry from patch-style post-fix approaches towards a systematic security engineering centered on state machine modeling, formal verification, and continuous monitoring. If the previous round of security construction addressed the question of "whether there is a defense line," then in the new battlefield where reentrancy and time dimensions intertwine, whether the protocol can establish a truly dynamic, closed-loop security system will determine its survival in the next round of DeFi iteration.

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

OKX Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits 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。