On April 1, 2026, the decentralized perpetual contract exchange Drift Protocol in the Solana ecosystem pressed the "emergency stop button." A sudden security attack resulted in approximately $295 million in funds being stolen or affected on the protocol, with several media outlets describing it as a significant hacking case related to a North Korean-supported hacker organization. Under the enormous gap, Drift was forced to suspend normal operations, instantly dragged from being a rising star in the fastest-growing contract track into a long battle of "liquidating its own assets, calming user emotions, and striving to survive."

After sorting out the remaining assets and loss structure, Drift's answer was a user recovery plan that looked more like a "long-term contract": on one hand, issuing so-called "recovery tokens" to affected users, with a 1:1 ratio corresponding to the verified USD-denominated loss amount—one token represents a one-dollar loss, but does not equal immediate cash recovery; on the other hand, starting with approximately $3.8 million calculated from the protocol's remaining assets, a recovery pool was established, with the promise that future operational income, after the exchange restarts, will continuously be injected into this pool until reaching a cap of approximately $127.5 million. In other words, what users receive is a credit certificate that can be gradually redeemed as the protocol "comes back to life," rather than a one-time payment check. The problem then becomes acute: when the total possible reinjection funding cap itself is lower than the $295 million loss scale, can this plan, deeply tied to future income and "installment debt repayment" through a token and a fund pool, really suffice to repair the trust gap ripped apart by the hacking incident beyond mere technical fixes?

Drift After the $295 Million Hack: From Shutdown to Compensation Blueprint

To understand how this "slowly redeemable credit certificate" was designed, the timeline must be pulled back to April 1, 2026. On that day, the decentralized perpetual contract exchange Drift Protocol, originally known for its high leverage and deep liquidity, was directly breached by a security attack, resulting in approximately $295 million in stolen or affected funds, causing the protocol's liquidity pool to lose its reliable pricing foundation, and the matching and liquidation logic was forced to hit the pause button, with normal operations almost instantly coming to a halt.

In the following weeks, multiple media outlets described this attack in their reports as "related to North Korean-supported hacker organizations," although no specific group names were uniformly pointed out. The emergence of this label indicated that Drift's troubles extended far beyond technical vulnerabilities: against the backdrop of global regulatory bodies closely monitoring "sensitive capital flows," any hacking event pointed at geopolitically sensitive parties would be magnified as a compliance and political risk sample, and every step the team took in "self-rescue" on-chain had to consider potential regulatory perspectives.

Under such public opinion and policy pressure, Drift's narrative path was not "we will immediately cover $295 million," but rather, first presenting a public recovery blueprint: acknowledging losses, laying out the status of remaining protocol assets, with a structure centered on issuing recovery tokens mapped to USD-denominated loss amounts at a 1:1 ratio, and accompanying it with an initial recovery pool of only about $3.8 million, binding users' claims to the future revenue performance of the protocol, and providing a timeline for restarting the exchange in the second quarter of 2026. In other words, Drift did not make an almost impossible promise of "full immediate compensation", but rather sought to provide a testable transitional path using a progressive mechanism with a clear upper limit (even when fully filled, still below $295 million) in an attempt to find a method between survival, compliance, and user expectations.

One Token One Dollar: How Drift Accounts for User Losses

In the recovery plan, Drift's first action is not to "repay money," but to "keep accounts." All verified user losses will be converted into dollar amounts, and then recovery/receipt tokens will be minted and distributed to users at a 1:1 ratio—one token corresponds to one dollar of verified loss. For users whose positions were wiped zeroed immediately by the attack and whose assets remained trapped within the protocol, this token is not a profit-sharing voucher but a claim certificate written on the chain: it precisely records how much USD you were harmed by this security incident in a traceable, transferable token form.

However, obtaining the claim certificate does not mean one can "immediately redeem one dollar." The authorities have already stated that the actual redemption of this batch of recovery tokens will be linked to the situation of the recovery pool: the recovery pool initially has only about $3.8 million, which comes from floating the remaining assets of Drift converted into USDT, and the main source of future replenishment will be the revenue generated by the exchange once it resumes operations, with an overall injection limit permanently set at approximately $127.5 million. In other words, even if users have tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of equivalent recovery tokens in their accounts, how quickly and at what ratio they can be redeemed back does not depend on the number of tokens, but rather on how much real money the recovery pool can eventually hold.

This design deliberately separates "confirmation of rights" from "cash redemption": on one hand, the recovery tokens clearly provide on-chain compensation rights, informing each address of how many USD in claims it has exactly; on the other hand, through the cap on the recovery pool's scale and the pace of injections tied to future revenue, it reserves a certain survival space for the protocol itself—Drift does not need to gather $295 million immediately after the attack but will repay this enormous debt recorded on-chain over the following years based on operational results. For users, the tokens affirm their losses, but whether and to what extent they can actually recover this debt entirely depends on whether the recovery pool can be filled and the actual performance of Drift's business after restarting, presenting a compromise both parties must accept between claims and survival.

From $3.8 Million to $127.5 Million Cap: Where Does the Money in the Recovery Pool Come From

First, let's look at the starting point. After the attack, Drift tallied up the remaining assets post-draining and converted the deployable portion into USDT, amounting to about $3.8 million, which serves as the "first bucket of gold" for the recovery pool. When faced with the total loss of $295 million, this $3.8 million is more like a symbolic margin: it proves that the team did not "clear out and run," yet it is far from sufficient to provide affected users with a perceptible compensation ratio in the short term.

The real hope rests on future business revenue. According to the public plan, the recovery pool will continuously receive the revenue generated by the Drift exchange's operations injected in a pre-agreed proportion, and has set a hard cap for this "replenishing money"—the total scale limit is approximately $127.5 million, which includes the initial $3.8 million. Drift has its sights set on the second quarter of 2026, planning to restart the exchange at that time and to ensure that every fee and every clearing income post-restart is transformed into a number in the recovery pool.

The problem is: with a starting amount of only $3.8 million and a cap at $127.5 million, this recovery pool naturally carries constraints in terms of speed and the final proportion it can cover. Even if the business recovers smoothly in the coming years and the recovery pool gradually gets "filled," the total amount available for redemption, under the current cap design, will still fall short of the $295 million loss scale, making users face what seems like a long-term recovery attempt with a certain discount and unknown time. In other words, this pool is both a cash flow container that Drift is trying to save itself with and a written hard rule on-chain: the rhythm of compensation depends on revenue growth, and the total compensation amount is initially limited to an area that cannot "fully fill the gap."

From Explosion to Restart: How to Regain User Trust

For Drift, the $295 million hole is just a surface loss; far more fatal is that the security narrative and credibility have been shattered together. The attack on April 1, 2026, is regarded by outsiders as one of the most serious security incidents in the crypto industry that year, forcing the protocol to come to a halt, with users instantly turning from trading counterparties into "creditors waiting for liquidation." The subsequently announced recovery tokens and recovery pool plan inscribed every $1 of verified losses into a token, but it also signifies an open admission: there is no possibility of immediate full redemption in the short term, and for a long time ahead, Drift must simultaneously repair both the code-level security understanding and the credibility deficit at the brand level.

Based on this premise, the path proposed by the team is "continue operations, compensate slowly": planning to restart decentralized exchange operations in the second quarter of 2026, injecting future business revenue into the recovery pool, to a maximum of approximately $127.5 million, using subsequent revenue to gradually offset historical losses. According to the currently public design, this means users' claims are bound to a long-running protocol— the longer the protocol survives and the better its income, the higher the proportion the recovery pool can pay; conversely, if trading is sparse post-restart or revenue is difficult to sustain, the speed and ratio at which the on-chain recovery token can be redeemed into "real dollars" will also be discounted. The decision to return to Drift for further orders becomes, to some extent, a participatory game of being both "customer and creditor."

The real uncertainty lies in whether this path can reach its destination, which depends not only on the market environment but also on whether Drift can maintain a sufficiently long "zero-accident" record thereafter. Currently, public information has not disclosed what kind of security audits and governance adjustments will be conducted before restarting, making it difficult for external observers to assess whether the new defenses are adequate to withstand the next attack; meanwhile, the expansion of the recovery pool highly relies on future operational income, which forces affected users to make choices between time costs and the risk of reopening. Whether trust returns ultimately depends on whether Drift can demonstrate this on-chain arrangement as a long-term redeemable commitment through continuous security performance and verifiable compensation progress in future operational cycles.

DeFi Recovery Token Experiment: Can Drift Forge a New Path

Writing the gap after the attack into a recovery token and gradually filling it with future earnings injected into a capped recovery pool, the path chosen by Drift this time essentially fragments the enormous loss of approximately $295 million into a long-term "on-chain debt" linked to the protocol's income, rather than promising immediate, unlimited coverage. The recovery pool initially has only about $3.8 million and could be filled up to approximately $127.5 million in the future, and the design of the plan preemptively acknowledges the reality that "some losses will not be covered," seeking a middle ground between "immediate full compensation" and "user self-bearance" amid the longevity of the protocol, operational incentives, and the minimum repayment to affected users.

Referring back to the past handling of security incidents in DeFi, some projects opted to finance users through one-time financing or external capital, while others directly treated hacking events as irreversible historical losses. The approach of distributing redeemable tokens and installment compensation to share the losses with future income has been a compromise scheme attempted multiple times in the industry. Drift’s approach is more extreme: accurately mapping every dollar loss using on-chain recovery tokens and completely locking the token redemption ability in a capped revenue recovery pool. What’s truly worth keeping an eye on next are three clearly visible curves: whether the redemption progress of recovery tokens continues transparently, whether the revenue post-restart is sufficient to steadily fill the $127.5 million pool, and whether the community will drive a new round of competition over the cap, priority, and distribution rules during the process drawn by these two data lines—these variables will determine whether Drift's recovery token experiment becomes a replicable new paradigm or a failed attempt cautiously noted by the market.

Join our community, let's discuss together and become stronger!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
AiCoin on-chain: https://aicoin.com/hyperliquid
Exclusive AiCoin Hyperliquid benefits: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
Exclusive AiCoin Aster benefits: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2

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。