Recently, a security incident related to Axelar Network quickly sparked discussions in the community and was once interpreted as "cross-chain infrastructure being compromised": some individuals directly pointed fingers at Axelar and even the IBC itself on social media, worrying that the core cross-chain protocol had been breached, causing panic and misunderstandings regarding cross-chain security. Subsequently, Axelar released an official statement attempting to "quench the fire," clearly stating that neither Axelar Network nor the IBC protocol itself had been attacked or compromised; rather, there was a problem with a third-party token smart contract related to the Secret Network – this contract was a fork based on CW20-ICS20, and its developers removed two core security checks during the implementation process, which Axelar classified as a typical "infinite mint" vulnerability. This article will restore the event's progression step by step, starting from the initial misunderstanding, along the boundaries of contract implementation and responsibility, and based on this, evaluate what signals this incident has genuinely released for cross-chain security practices within the Cosmos ecosystem.

Misleading Spread: Axelar and IBC Allegedly Breached

Before the details of "infinite mint" were clarified, the community only captured the vague description of "security incident related to Axelar." Soon, the focus of the discussion was simplified to an emotionally charged question – "Have Axelar and IBC been compromised?" Within the Cosmos circle, this statement rapidly fermented through social media and chat groups; some voices escalated the question to "cross-chain security breach," misinterpreting a vulnerability originally occurring in some third-party token smart contract as an attack attempt against Axelar Network or the IBC protocol itself.

This amplification effect is not accidental. Cross-chain interoperability protocols play a foundational infrastructure role within the Cosmos ecosystem; once they are suspected of having security gaps, the market instinctively projects the risk onto the credibility of the entire cross-chain path. Even if public information remains at the "suspected" and "unclear" stage, the narrative of "underlying bridges being compromised" still more easily gains traction, with panic spreading from specific contracts to the entire cross-chain architecture. In this context, Axelar's subsequent official statement served as a "brake": on one hand, it candidly stated that "the community has certain misunderstandings regarding the event," while on the other hand, it clearly pointed out that neither Axelar Network nor the IBC protocol itself had been attacked or compromised, redirecting public opinion from the grand narrative of "cross-chain infrastructure being compromised" back to the more specific and definable level of "errors in the third-party contract implementation."

Real Vulnerability: Security Gate Removed from CW20-ICS20 Fork

Following Axelar's explanation, the "real hole" was quickly redefined: the fundamental issue was not Axelar's cross-chain infrastructure, but a third-party token smart contract. Axelar stated clearly that the exploited token contract was neither developed, deployed, nor maintained by Axelar Network but was a fork based on the common CW20-ICS20 implementation within the Cosmos ecosystem. In other words, the cross-chain channel was functioning as expected at the rule level, but the "tap" – the specific token contract at the end of the channel – had been modified by someone else.

The key modification in this forked contract was the removal of two core security checks from the original implementation by the developers. Axelar categorized the issues exposed by this as an "infinite mint" vulnerability: in a normal design, security checks act like gates, regulating "when tokens can be minted and how many can be minted," ensuring that every new token on-chain has corresponding cross-chain assets or states to support it; once these gates are removed, the contract may logically lose boundary control over minting behavior, leaving space for attackers to construct an unrestricted minting path. In such a structure, even if the cross-chain protocol itself has not been breached, the non-compliant forked contract above it may still be single-point compromised, and this portion of risk and consequence should theoretically be primarily borne by the developers and maintainers of the forked contract.

Cross-Chain Tokens Under the Shadow of Infinite Minting

From a user perspective, an on-chain asset transferred via Axelar or IBC is often simply understood as a "token issued by the cross-chain protocol," but structurally, these cross-chain mapped assets are essentially projections of rules from the source chain contract. Axelar categorized the current issue as an "infinite mint" vulnerability existing in the third-party token, meaning that as long as the source CW20 contract logically allows for infinite issuance, the corresponding mapping hanging on the cross-chain channel equals a synchronization of this uncontrolled supply relationship to other chains. ICS20 is responsible for cross-chain asset transfers within the IBC context, not for risk control reviews of substitute business contracts; when the token standards of the source chain are tampered with key constraints, the cross-chain protocol also finds it difficult to "block" issues at the message level for users.

CW20 is one of the most common token standards within the Cosmos ecosystem, usually combined with ICS20 responsible for cross-chain transfers, forming the foundational module of "native issuance + IBC circulation." Axelar disclosed that the exploited instance was indeed a forked version based on CW20-ICS20, where the developers removed two core security checks, directly opening the gates to "infinite minting," while Axelar and the IBC protocol themselves had not been reported to have any security defects. This serves as a clear wake-up call for all projects that reuse or fork similar contracts: cross-chain does not automatically elevate the security level; rather, once critical validation logic is indiscriminately altered on what seems like the "standard" CW20-ICS20 template, the entire path of tokens extended through IBC or other cross-chain channels will be dragged into the same risk due to the weakest source contract.

Secret Incident Reflects Cosmos Security Weaknesses

In Axelar's official statement, Secret Network was explicitly cited as a party "related to the event," but the expression stopped there: the statement did not clarify whether Secret Network was the affected chain, the contract deployer, or simply involved at a certain point in the cross-chain path. The same statement repeatedly emphasized that the issue stemmed from a third-party token smart contract, which was not developed, deployed, or maintained by Axelar, leaving "Secret's specific role in the event" intentionally vague. Based on the current public information, we can only confirm the presence of an on-chain connection between this "infinite mint" vulnerability and Secret Network, but we cannot and should not extrapolate Secret's responsibility or changes in security levels from this.

What has truly been illuminated is a more concealed risk pathway within the Cosmos ecosystem: the contract exploited this time is a forked version based on CW20-ICS20, where the developers removed two core security checks while reusing the standard template, ultimately evolving into a minting gap that could be exploited. Looking outwards from this, once similar forked logic is replicated or modified by third-party teams across various Cosmos ecosystem chains but lacks an auditing and review level equal to the original version, it may superficially appear as reusing "mature norms," yet practically it could connect various inadequately vetted high-risk modules within cross-chain pathways. Axelar's deliberately restrained description of Secret Network leaves "related yet undefined" space, which also serves as a reminder to the market: rather than hastily searching for a single responsible party, it is better to reflect on the entire landscape of forked contracts based on CW20-ICS20 and the gaps in security processes within Cosmos, as this is the true soil in which such incidents continue to recur.

How Cross-Chain Protocols Can Avoid Misfire

Bringing the entire uproar back to its starting point, the core answer provided by this incident is actually quite restrained: Axelar has repeatedly emphasized that Axelar Network and the IBC protocol itself have not been breached; the real breach is a third-party forked contract based on CW20-ICS20, where the developers removed two key security checks, which then laid the groundwork for the "infinite mint" issues to be classified. However, subsequent public discourse, due to early vague information, pointed the finger at the cross-chain infrastructure itself, amplifying unnecessary systemic panic. For any cross-chain protocol, this serves as a reverse lesson – not only must third-party contract risks be technically isolated, but also, on the level of ecosystem operations, there must be clear demarcation of the boundaries between "official contracts" and "forked implementations," clarifying the security responsibilities, review scope, and applicable scenarios of forked versions in advance. Otherwise, when incidents occur, it becomes easy for who wrote the code, who maintains it, and who is liable to become entangled in a mess within cross-chain paths. What remains to be observed is whether Axelar will further promote more detailed responsibility division and security best practice guidelines following this statement, such as providing clearer language on the usage boundaries for similar CW20-ICS20 forks, while the community and developers also need to initiate "self-auditing" at the information level: when encountering cross-chain-related alerts, first distinguish whether the problem lies in the cross-chain network, underlying protocol, or a specific asset contract before deciding whether to amplify dissemination, so as to not blindly trust optimistic narratives nor allow innocent infrastructure to be swept up in panic due to misunderstandings in future incidents.

Join our community, let's discuss together and grow stronger!
AiCoin Exclusive Hyperliquid Benefits: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
AiCoin Exclusive Aster Benefits: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram Community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain Community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin On-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata

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。