Recently, on Coinbase's Ethereum Layer 2 network Base, a token named THEO has come under intense scrutiny: According to monitoring information cited by multiple media outlets from PeckShield, an unidentified hacker maliciously minted approximately 19 million THEO tokens on-chain and then quickly sold off this batch of "falling from the sky" chips within the Base network, converting them into about 700.8 ETH, which at the time's price amounted to around 1.76 million USD. After cashing out, this batch of ETH was transferred to the Ethereum mainnet via a cross-chain bridge, further elongating and diluting the trace of the funds, while what remained was a market instantly diluted and crushed under selling pressure—over the past 24 hours, the price of THEO plummeted by approximately 92%, leaving holders nearly wiped out of their profits and even principal. This seemingly "routine" malicious minting and cash-out incident quickly transcended the scope of a single small token's collapse: in a still rapidly expanding Layer 2 ecosystem, a token can be quietly minted and moved across chains in this way, reflecting the security gaps behind contract permissions, internal project risk controls, and cross-chain bridge processes on Base, which will become the main thread attempted to be unraveled and dissected below.
19 Million Tokens Appeared Out of Nowhere: Replay of Attack Path
According to PeckShield’s disclosures, the entire attack on Base began with a sudden and anomalous minting: about 19 million tokens suddenly appeared under the THEO contract address, and the supply was raised to an abnormally visible level within a short period. After the minting was completed, this portion of "suddenly appeared" THEO was immediately pushed to the market, with the attacker converting it into about 700.8 ETH through on-chain transactions either in batches or all at once, which, at the time's price, amounted to several hundred thousand USD, with the entire selling process leaving almost no time for the secondary market to react and digest.
Cashing out was just the first step; the real crux was how the funds left Base. On-chain records show that after THEO was exchanged for ETH, the approximately 700.8 ETH was quickly transferred from Base to the Ethereum mainnet via a cross-chain bridge. The attacker completed the "minting—selling—cross-chain" closed loop in an extremely short time, providing space for further dispersal and concealment of funds. It should be emphasized that what is currently known to the outside world is merely this visible funding path itself: who triggered this minting, what contract entry or permission flaw was exploited, remains an unanswered black box in the available public information.
The Old Problem of Emerging L2: Contract Permission Failure
The malicious minting of THEO has already provided a clear outcome: the permissions related to minting on this contract have gone out of control at the factual level. For a token that is already in circulation, the right to mint should be the most sensitive and strictly constrained permission. Once someone can mint approximately 19 million THEO out of the established total supply, the subsequent sell-off and price collapse are almost predetermined. The problem is that public information has not disclosed whether THEO had undergone a security audit, whether it relinquished minting rights, nor has there been an authoritative technical review informing the external world about how the minting was initiated.
From the perspective of contract engineering, such minting attacks typically revolve around several old and well-known risk points: First, the project team retaining minting permissions even after going live; if the related private key is leaked or misused internally, it is equivalent to handing the money printer over to the attacker; Second, flaws exist in the contract logic itself, which appears to restrict minting but can effectively bypass checks under certain calling paths; Third, seemingly secure multi-tiered permission designs may have configuration errors in implementation, resulting in addresses that should not have minting rights gaining actual control. As for THEO, it is currently impossible to determine which of these factors is responsible or if there are compounded factors at play; all analyses remain at the level of possibilities.
The chain that encountered issues this time is Base. As an Ethereum Layer 2 network launched by Coinbase, the Base ecosystem has rapidly expanded in recent years, with numerous new projects flooding in over a short period, often prioritizing narrative chasing and traffic capture over the progression of permission design and security audits. Some projects default to the premise of “reconstructing and relinquishing permissions later” when launching contracts. The minting incident of THEO demonstrates that during such expansion phases, as long as there is a gap in the most basic minting permissions for any token, a hacker can take the opportunity to use a single minting event to shatter both credibility and price of the entire project, which is precisely the hidden cost that emerging Layers such as Base cannot avoid when continuing to grow their ecosystems.
92% Price Crash: How Retail Investors Were Instantly Cleared Out
When the malicious minting was completed on-chain and the hacker began dumping the newly minted THEO onto the market, ordinary token holders saw only the price curve plummet almost vertically over the span of 24 hours—according to public information, THEO lost approximately 92% in one day, nearing a “zeroing” level of withdrawal. For retail investors who bought in at high levels or midway, whether for short-term speculation or long-term holding, such a drop effectively erased their entire holdings, leaving only a token balance “still present” in the account, but with virtually no market value remaining.
Mechanically speaking, the harm of "dumping after minting" lies in the fact that it is not a natural selling pressure but instead amplifies supply in a one-time burst, instantly squeezing the value space of existing holders. When the hacker exchanges chips minted maliciously for mainstream assets, the original holders are left with no choice: they neither know when they started being diluted nor can they easily determine if the price's initial movements signify ordinary corrections or a contract breach. By the time news of the minting and attack spreads through social channels, the market has often completed the entire process of high to “halving and then halving again,” and as of now, there has been no official response from the THEO project team regarding compensation, asset recovery, or buybacks. In the absence of rapid responsive measures and clear expectations, retail investors can only passively endure this round of value collapse ignited by malicious minting in the secondary market.
Cross-Chain Bridges as Withdrawal Points: How Difficult It Is to Track Funds
For the hacker, completing the malicious minting and sell-off on Base was just the first step; the real "cash-out" occurs at the moment of exit. According to AiCoin data and public on-chain information, the attacker transferred the exchanged approximately 700.8 ETH through a cross-chain bridge from Base to the Ethereum mainnet, valued at about 1.76 million USD. Once outside Layer 2, the assets entered a larger system with more addresses and a longer history, and the on-chain trace was instantly submerged amid a massive volume of transactions. Currently, there is no public information revealing the specific name of the cross-chain bridge used, nor has there been any authoritative news indicating that any cross-chain bridge or related institution has effectively frozen or intercepted this batch of ETH.
Reflecting on this incident and the role of cross-chain bridges, one awkward reality is that they are both channels for the free flow of assets and natural exits for attackers to "launder" stolen funds. In theory, cross-chain bridges can focus on risk control rules, address blacklisting, and real-time monitoring, but in practice, they are often constrained by decentralized designs, inter-ecosystem collaborations, and compliance boundaries, resulting in most bridges only cooperating to mark suspicious addresses after the fact and struggling to timely stem the outflow of funds. Once, like this time, the illicit funds are crossed as a whole and subsequently split and transferred into multiple addresses or even sent to mixing services on the Ethereum mainnet, what was once a clear funding path becomes fragmented into numerous pieces, making recovery increasingly difficult with each split transaction. The monitoring gaps repeatedly exposed in such incidents within the cross-chain ecosystem are therefore difficult to bridge.
Viewing Subsequent Signals from Base through the THEO Incident
The malicious minting and cash-out of THEO serve as a passive security and governance stress test for Base, which is still in its expansion phase: on one side, an unknown hacker minted approximately 19 million tokens, converting them into about 700.8 ETH valued at around 1.76 million USD and transferring them across chains; on the other side, there have been no clear recovery results or judicial progress reported so far in public information, nor have we seen a comprehensive follow-up or rectification plan from the project team. This "silence" itself could translate into a discount on expectations for the ecosystem. Moving forward, what the market really needs to watch is not just whether prices stabilize, but three longer-term signals: First, whether the THEO team will ultimately provide a clear explanation of permissions, a compensation pathway, and a contract upgrade plan; Second, whether there will be substantive recovery actions on-chain, such as further joint marking and restrictions on related addresses and possible collaborative disposals; Third, whether more contracts on Base will proactively disclose permission settings, audit reports, and emergency plans, allowing indicators like “who can mint, who can pause” to become clear metrics visible before investment. For ordinary participants, the direct lesson from this incident is that when participating in small-cap tokens and new projects, prioritizing questions about whether contracts retain high-risk permissions like minting, whether third-party audits have been completed, and the historical responsiveness of the platform to security incidents should be treated as decision thresholds of equal importance to the token's thematic appeal.
Join our community to discuss together and become stronger!
AiCoin's exclusive Hyperliquid benefits: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
AiCoin's 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。
