Gate hack drama—looks like the market has already given its answer. A while back, the $1.7M theft incident caused quite a stir, with many people shouting: Gate is going to face a bank run, Gate is done for. But looking back at the on-chain fund data, there’s an interesting phenomenon: the market is far more rational than the emotions. According to current fund flow stats: during the incident’s peak, Gate saw a cumulative net outflow of about $250M. However, in the past two days, it’s been back to net inflows, suggesting the most panicked phase is likely over. In other words, the market has cast its first vote. Users were worried, funds were withdrawn, but it didn’t escalate into a full-blown liquidity crisis. That said, the halt in fund outflows doesn’t mean the issue is resolved. On the contrary, the real problem is just beginning. $1.7M isn’t fatal for a major exchange. What’s truly fatal is when users start questioning whether their accounts are genuinely secure. If an account has: - Phone verification - Email verification - Google Authenticator - Facial recognition And assets still end up lost, then the focus shifts from the $1.7M to: are these security measures even effective? I think what Gate needs to do next isn’t proving there’s no issue, but figuring out where the issue lies. - Was user information leaked? - Is the facial recognition process rigorous enough? - Are there vulnerabilities in the risk control mechanisms? - Who’s ultimately responsible—users, hackers, or the platform? If these questions aren’t clearly addressed, the next wave of market panic will happen. So while I see the liquidity crisis has passed, the trust crisis hasn’t. For any exchange, reserves can be replenished, liquidity can be bought back, and trading volume can be faked. But once trust is damaged, the cost of repairing it is often far higher than $1.7M. Gate’s biggest loss this time might not be the $1.7M, but forcing the entire industry to rethink: when facial recognition, SMS verification, and Google Authenticator are all in place, who’s really protecting your assets?