On October 31, both the security layer and trading layer risks lit up red almost simultaneously: one side reported that Flap and Kintsu disclosed their official websites were subjected to DNS attacks or hijackings. The former urgently migrated the site to flap.cool, reminding users not to access the old domain flap.sh or connect their wallets through it, while the latter confirmed that kintsu.xyz was hijacked at the domain registrar and its page was replaced with a malicious website, warning users not to connect their wallets or sign any content under that domain; on the other side, Bitget announced that starting from November 1, it would implement dynamic leverage management for 21 foreign exchange currency pairs including EURUSD and USDJPY on contracts for difference, raising the maximum leverage to 2000 times and accompanying it with a tiered margin mechanism. Along this timeline, the risks brought by tampering with domain resolution, which affected on-chain operation permissions, compounded with the amplified profit and loss volatility of high-leverage contracts for difference, indicate that risks are rising simultaneously across the industry, from infrastructure to product design, pushing users towards a more complex risk combination scenario.

Two Official Websites Fall on the Same Day: DNS Becomes the Attack Entry

On October 31, Flap officially disclosed that it encountered a DNS attack. The project team stated they were still investigating whether the incident was related to its domain service provider, but the root cause had not yet been determined. The most direct response was to quickly migrate the official website to the new domain flap.cool and publicly remind users not to access the old domain flap.sh or connect their wallets through it. For a crypto product that relies on web front-end interaction with wallets, the domain suddenly becoming an untrusted entry point means that any “habitual” click could hand on-chain operation permissions to attackers.

Almost at the same time, Kintsu also discovered that its official website kintsu.xyz had experienced DNS hijacking at the domain registrar, with the current resolution pointing to a malicious website. The official urgently issued a notice, clearly requesting users not to access that domain anymore, let alone connect their wallets or sign any content on the page. Following the typical patterns of DNS attacks and hijackings, such tampering redirects a domain that originally pointed to a legitimate site to an attacker-controlled front end; as long as a user completes a signature or authorization there, the attacker gains the chance to obtain on-chain operation permissions. The simultaneous revelation of DNS-level tampering risks for both official websites on the same date itself constitutes a signal: the domain service, long regarded as a “default secure infrastructure,” is exposing a more industry-wide common vulnerability.

Authorization Phished: Domain Hijacking Leads to On-chain Risks

In the incidents involving Flap and Kintsu, the real danger lies not just in “visiting the wrong site,” but in the subsequent on-chain authorizations being silently phished away. After the DNS tampering, the domain originally pointing to the official front end ends up on a spoofed page constructed by attackers, with interfaces and interaction paths often highly similar to the true official website: the same “Connect Wallet,” the same pop-up signature prompts. Users may believe they are authorizing a familiar protocol, but what they actually sign is the transfer of asset operation rights to a malicious contract. Once such authorizations take effect on-chain, the attacker can initiate transfers or other fund-related operations independently, and users often only realize the issue has occurred when they see abnormal assets.

Kintsu’s prompt on October 31 detailed a specific response path: users who had connected their wallets or signed on the official site around Beijing time 08:00 were advised to immediately revoke relevant authorizations through revoke.cash and transfer their funds to a safer address. Flap’s reminder also focused on “not connecting wallets through the old domain” and handling any potential authorization risks early. From the user perspective, the essential actions following such incidents can be summarized in three steps: first, proactively verify the domain spelling and the source link in the official announcements before visiting; second, maintain the “least authorization” principle during interactions, avoiding opening large or “all assets” permissions in one go; third, regularly use revocation tools to check and clean up historical high-risk authorizations, tightening long-term permissions hidden on-chain to what one truly needs.

Bitget Introduces 2000x Leverage: Forex CFDs Intensified

While users of Flap and Kintsu were scanning for authorization risks, another end of risk leverage was silently raised. Bitget confirmed in an announcement that starting from November 1, it would implement “dynamic leverage management” for contracts for difference on 21 foreign exchange currency pairs including EURUSD and USDJPY; under this framework, the maximum leverage ceiling was increased to 2000 times, coupled with a tiered margin mechanism that adjusts required margin according to the size of positions. The logic of CFDs is inherently straightforward: users do not hold the underlying assets but bet on the price direction; any rise or fall amplifies profits and losses through leverage. This upgrade is equivalent to further compressing margin space on the existing structure, allowing even minute price fluctuations to quickly translate into explosive profits and losses.

For traders, 2000 times is not just a marketing number but a rewriting of time dimensions—profits can accumulate in an extremely short period, and losses can just as swiftly devour the margin. In the combination of dynamic leverage and tiered margin, small positions can theoretically enjoy higher leverage while large positions are required to input more margin, using structured rules to constrain extreme exposures. However, the specific leverage ranges for each currency pair and the margin ratio for each tier were not disclosed in public materials, leaving outsiders only able to acknowledge that overall risk exposure has been significantly raised based on contract forms and leverage ceilings, but unable to detail the precise risk profiles of any given currency pair or position size, making this high-leverage endeavor feel more like a collective probing of boundaries upon review.

Weakening Security Base Coupled with Extremification of Trading Resonance

If platform risk management is considered as a line, one end is how users safely reach product entry, while the other end is what trading conditions they face after arriving. The DNS attacks on Flap and Kintsu and Bitget’s high-leverage CFD upgrade have almost simultaneously stretched both ends of this line to their limits. The former indicates that even with core assets and operations on-chain, centralized components such as domain resolution, DNS configuration, and registrar accounts remain critical attack surfaces; once tampered with, every step a user takes to connect their wallet and authorize signatures on the official site could unknowingly hand on-chain operation permissions to attackers; the latter, through raising the maximum leverage on foreign exchange CFDs to 2000 times and combining it with a tiered margin structure, further draws the inherently amplifying profit and loss contracts closer to an extremified trading environment within a compliant framework.

The combination of these two signals forms a composite risk profile for the same class of users: they must guard against their entry being maliciously controlled while being permitted to magnify any judgment mistakes under extremely high leverage, with no visibility on the scale of those affected by Flap and Kintsu’s incidents, nor any regulatory response or evidence of platform-driven safety strategy upgrades or user education. Continuing to handle the loosening security base and rising trading risks in isolation—emphasizing innovation and allure solely at the product level yet leaving gaps in entry protection and risk awareness—will ultimately amplify the platform's trust cost and the probability of reputational damage instead of the user-controllable profit space.

Observation Coordinates for the Next Round of Platform Security Game

Flap is still at the “determining the root cause” stage, with officials clearly stating that it has not yet confirmed whether the DNS attack is related to its domain service provider; Kintsu, after confirming that kintsu.xyz was hijacked at the registrar, can only offer an emergency path for revoking authorizations and transferring funds, without disclosing the scale of affected users or financial losses; Bitget, on November 1, launched foreign exchange CFDs with a maximum leverage of 2000 times as per the announcement, and solidified this risk parameter as part of its competitive strategy with tiered margin. These three incidents unfolded on the same timeline but collectively left a key gap: no public disclosure of loss amounts, specific user numbers, nor any visible penalties or compensation arrangements, forcing external observers to judge each platform's risk preference based on structure and behavior rather than outcome data. The next round of coordinates to closely monitor should first be whether security reinforcement at the domain and DNS level will turn from project self-rescue into an industry consensus; secondly, whether authorization management tools like revoke.cash can be proactively incorporated into user education and entry prompts; finally, whether the upper limits, risk warnings, and usage thresholds for high-leverage products will be iteratively upgraded in sync rather than only emphasized in profit narratives. In the absence of loss statistics, what really deserves continued tracking is whether the platforms’ long-term choices in these coordinates lean closer to “prioritizing security base” or “prioritizing extreme leverage.”

Join our community, let’s discuss and become stronger together!
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[email protected]，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。