Crypto
Researchers uncover vulnerabilities leading to predatory trading in popular Ethereum cryptocurrency rollups
Ethereum, a decentralized online platform that allows users to conduct financial transactions in Ether cryptocurrency, prides itself on the system’s high security.
But new findings from Northeastern University’s computer scientists and researchers at ETH Zurich, a public research university in Switzerland, show that it might not be so bulletproof, and its users might be susceptible to some market participants’ predatory practices.
“There are direct monetary incentives,” says Ben Weintraub, a Northeastern doctoral student in the Khoury College of Computer Sciences. “So in my view, it’s better if researchers find and publicize it first before people mistakenly lose money.”
Weintraub presented the paper on the findings at the Association for Computing Machinery’s annual Conference on Computer and Communications Security (ACM CCS 2024) held Oct. 14–18 in Salt Lake City. The study is available on the arXiv preprint server.
He and his co-authors conducted a large-scale analysis of exploitative trading activities on Ethereum itself and across so-called rollups, or off-the-platform services that allow faster processing of higher volumes of transactions.
The researchers found evidence that certain actors can manipulate the market on rollups, which was previously thought to be impossible.
“It was known to be possible on regular Ethereum, but it was thought to be impossible on rollups and we showed that it is not impossible,” Weintraub says.
The paper presents three novel types of attacks in which predatory traders could have made about $2 million in profits in the last three years by manipulating transactions within Ethereum trading networks.
Ethereum is a network of independent computers across the world that follows the Ethereum protocol—a set of rules on how the computers in the global network can interact with each other. It uses blockchain technology, pioneered by Bitcoin.
A blockchain is a database of transactions that is shared across computers in a network. Once a new block, or a new set of transactions, is added to the blockchain, that data can no longer be removed by anybody, primarily due to cryptographic techniques that highlight any attempts at tampering.
Anyone can create an Ethereum account from anywhere, at any time. No central authority such as a government or a company has control over Ethereum, which means no individual can change the rules or restrict users’ access. Any Ethereum protocol changes require approval from more than half of the network.
Unlike Bitcoin, which is solely a payment system with a name-sake cryptocurrency, Ethereum allows users to build applications, communities and organizations on its platform.
The Ethereum network, however, has a scalability problem—as the number of people using it has grown, the blockchain has reached certain throughput limitations that further inflated the costs for conducting transactions on the platform.
One solution are the rollups, such as Arbitrum, Optimism and zkSync—which were analyzed by Weintraub—that aim to improve Ethereum’s speed by taking batches of transactions and calculations off Ethereum. This reduced the processing cost of a transaction to roughly 1 cent, Weintraub says.
Some actors make profits trading cryptocurrencies by trying to achieve maximal extractable value, he says, by manipulating the order of transactions that are pending inclusion on the blockchain. The research provides exclusive insights into the volume of maximal extractable value transactions on rollups, costs associated with them, profits made by such exploitative traders, competition between them and response time to such activities across Ethereum and the rollups.
Some methods that malicious actors use are common to financial markets, like arbitrage, when a user buys something on one exchange and quickly sells it for profit on another exchange.
“It’s generally thought to be a good thing because it keeps different exchanges balanced in terms of price,” Weintraub says. “But there are also types [of maximal extractable value] that are not good. One that’s fairly well-known in research is called sandwiching.”
In sandwiching, when a speculator sees someone is about to buy an asset, they buy it first, driving up the price. The speculator then quickly sells it at the higher price.
Sandwiching is considered a “bad,” manipulative trading strategy affecting the price that other traders get. On Ethereum, block producers—people or groups who get paid when their hardware is randomly selected to verify a block’s transactions—can try to maximize the amount of profit they make by manipulating how transactions are ordered or included in a block before it is added to the blockchain.
“The reason we call this an attack is because it is purely damaging to that victim, who now has to pay a little bit more for their transaction,” Weintraub says. “The system broadly does not benefit at all. There’s just the one who profits—the ‘sandwicher.’”
While the researchers didn’t find traditional sandwich attacks on popular rollups, they identified three potential strategies for them when transactions move between Ethereum and rollups with a time delay.
“This just came from analyzing the protocol and looking at the exact flow of transactions—when they get sent, when the rollup seems to respond to them or when they end up on the blockchain,” Weintraub says.
“We tested our attacks on [Ethereum’s] test-net, a network of ‘fake’ money that is used by developers to test their applications,” he says. “And, essentially, we stole all of the money from only ourselves.”
Weintraub is currently in contact with major rollups’ developers to see what can be done about the possibility of the attacks. Two types of these novel attacks can be prevented, Weintraub says, while it is unclear how to protect users from the third type.
“Our view is that it’s better to just get this information out there so people, at least, are aware of the risks,” he says.
More information:
Christof Ferreira Torres et al, Rolling in the Shadows: Analyzing the Extraction of MEV Across Layer-2 Rollups, arXiv (2024). DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2405.00138
arXiv
Northeastern University
This story is republished courtesy of Northeastern Global News news.northeastern.edu.
Citation:
Researchers uncover vulnerabilities leading to predatory trading in popular Ethereum cryptocurrency rollups (2024, November 11)
retrieved 11 November 2024
from https://techxplore.com/news/2024-11-uncover-vulnerabilities-predatory-popular-ethereum.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no
part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
Crypto
Binance Research Links Bitcoin Weakness to Record S&P 500 Capital Inflow
Key Takeaways
- Binance Research says Bitcoin’s 11% Q2 2026 drop tracks capital rotating into AI and energy.
- Cboe Dispersion Index hit 42, suggesting U.S. stock gains are concentrated in a few sectors.
- Binance Research says bitcoin often bottoms within 0-20 weeks absent a crypto crisis.
Cboe Dispersion Index Hits 42 as Bitcoin Competes With AI Stock Rally
Bitcoin’s latest pullback may have less to do with crypto-specific stress and more to do with Wall Street’s crowded trade in U.S. equities, according to Binance Research.
The institutional research arm of Binance said capital is being pulled into a narrow set of powerful themes in the S&P 500, leaving bitcoin on the sidelines. The firm pointed to the Cboe Dispersion Index, which has climbed to 42, its third-highest level on record.
A high dispersion reading suggests that market gains are heavily concentrated in a limited number of stocks or sectors. In the current cycle, Binance Research said investors are crowding into artificial intelligence, semiconductors, defense, energy, and commodities.
That creates a simple but important liquidity problem for bitcoin. When a few equity themes generate outsized returns, capital follows those trades. As money concentrates in stocks, less liquidity is available for crypto assets. Bitcoin then becomes a funding casualty rather than the source of the weakness.
The pattern is not new. Binance Research cited several past examples when intense equity-market rotations coincided with bitcoin declines.
In 2015, capital moved into FAANG stocks and biotech, while bitcoin fell 20%. In 2016, a defensive equity rotation matched an 18% bitcoin drop. Late-cycle FAANG strength and the ICO collapse in 2018 came alongside a 68% fall in bitcoin.
The same pattern appeared again in 2022, when energy stocks surged, and bitcoin lost 50%. Binance Research also pointed to the fourth quarter of 2025, when AI and semiconductor stocks gained more than 200%, while Bitcoin declined 39%.
The latest pressure is smaller but still meaningful. In the second quarter of 2026, Binance Research said a combined rotation into AI, defense, and energy has coincided with an 11% bitcoin decline.
The firm described the current backdrop as one of bitcoin’s strongest multi-theme capital diversions. Growth capital is moving into AI infrastructure and applications. Geopolitical hedge capital is flowing into defense and energy. Inflation-hedge demand is shifting toward commodities.
Bitcoin, in that setup, is competing for attention on several fronts at once.
Still, Binance Research said history points to a possible rebound. In past periods when the Cboe Dispersion Index reached extreme levels, Bitcoin often found a bottom within zero to 20 weeks. The median was about two weeks in cases without a crypto-native crisis.
That distinction matters. Binance Research said the current downturn does not appear to be caused by a major internal crypto shock. If the weakness is mainly due to temporary capital diversion into equities, the firm said Bitcoin may recover faster once those crowded trades cool.
Crypto
Missouri attorney general sues CoinFlip over cryptocurrency ATM scams – Missouri – The Black Chronicle
Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway announced that her office has filed suit against GPD Holdings LLC, doing business as CoinFlip, alleging the company knowingly facilitated fraudulent transactions through its cryptocurrency kiosks while profiting from excessive and inadequately disclosed fees.
The lawsuit, filed in Jasper Circuit Court, claims CoinFlip violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act by failing to prevent scam-related transactions at its Bitcoin ATMs and by concealing transaction fees that could reach nearly 22% of a transaction’s value.
“Bitcoin and crypto ATMs are the new getaway cars for fraud, whisking away innocent people’s money to scammers, never to return,” Hanaway said in a statement. “As Attorney General, I’ll use every tool to flush out the cowardly scammers hiding behind screens and hold them accountable. My office will always prioritize protecting Missourians — especially our seniors and veterans.”
CoinFlip advertises itself as the “world’s largest network of cryptocurrency ATMs by transaction volume” and operates more than 140 kiosks across Missouri in convenience stores, liquor stores, vape shops and gas stations, according to the attorney general’s office.
The petition alleges CoinFlip publicly markets its kiosks as safe and equipped with fraud-prevention mechanisms, while scam transactions involving its machines continue to occur regularly in Missouri.
– Advertisement –
According to the lawsuit, cryptocurrency ATM scams have increased dramatically in recent years because cryptocurrency transactions are difficult to trace and irreversible.
The Federal Trade Commission reported that fraud losses involving crypto ATMs increased nearly tenfold from 2020 to 2023, with more than $65 million in reported losses during the first half of 2024 alone.
The lawsuit also cites FTC data showing reported fraud losses among seniors involving cryptocurrency scams have increased more than 20-fold since 2020.
The Missouri State Highway Patrol’s Missouri Information Analysis Center and the St. Louis Fusion Center identified more than 350 cryptocurrency-related cases involving crypto ATMs during the past two years, according to the attorney general’s office.
The state’s petition details several alleged scam incidents involving Missouri residents. One victim, identified in the filing as an 80-year-old veteran, allegedly lost between $180,000 and $200,000 after being persuaded by someone claiming to have made money through cryptocurrency investments.
The lawsuit states the victim sold his vehicle, withdrew money from legitimate investment accounts and nearly lost his apartment before ending communication with the scammer in March 2026.
– Advertisement –
The petition alleges the victim used CoinFlip ATMs to convert cash into Bitcoin and was never clearly informed of transaction fees.
The filing states the victim was unable to recover any of the funds and now survives on Social Security.
Another victim allegedly withdrew $1,000 after receiving a call from someone posing as a Jefferson Sheriff’s Office employee claiming she had missed jury duty and faced arrest warrants.
The woman was directed to deposit money into a CoinFlip ATM at a vape shop. According to the lawsuit, a vape shop employee warned her she was being scammed, but she still lost the money and later learned only $182.38 in transaction fees could potentially be refunded.
A third victim allegedly lost $900 after a caller posing as a Boone Sheriff’s Office employee directed her to a “police monitored” CoinFlip ATM to pay supposed warrant fees.
The attorney general’s office alleges CoinFlip’s internal records and policies demonstrate the company was aware its machines were frequently used for scams. The lawsuit states CoinFlip tracked “blacklist reported criminal and terrorist wallet addresses” and maintained policies related to identifying elder financial exploitation.
The petition further alleges CoinFlip failed to act on warning signs, such as multiple users sending cryptocurrency to the same wallet addresses and older customers using kiosks while speaking on the phone with scammers.
The suit also alleges CoinFlip concealed transaction fees by prominently displaying only a $2.99 “Network Fee” while burying larger transaction fees in its terms of service.
According to the petition, customers depositing $100 into a machine could receive only about $75.76 worth of Bitcoin after fees were deducted.
The attorney general’s office launched a statewide investigation into cryptocurrency kiosk operators in December 2025 amid concerns about deceptive fee structures and scams involving crypto ATMs.
The lawsuit asks the court to declare CoinFlip’s practices unlawful under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, permanently enjoin the company from operating in Missouri until fraud-prevention measures are implemented, and impose civil penalties of up to $1,826,000 for alleged violations over the past five years.
The state is also seeking restitution for consumers, including the victims identified in the lawsuit.
“Our mission is simple: protect Missourians’ hard-earned money and stop scammers in their tracks,” Hanaway said. “It’s not just Bitcoin ATMs; it’s all fraud, and we will go after any business taking advantage of vulnerable Missourians.”
The attorney general’s office urged Missourians who believe they have been harmed through the use of a cryptocurrency kiosk to contact local law enforcement, report the incident to the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center and file a complaint with the attorney general’s office.
Crypto
South Africa Rules out Foreign Stablecoins as Payment Tools to Curb Dollarization
Key Takeaways
- On June 2, 2026, the SARB and FSCA declared that crypto assets and stablecoins are not legal tender.
- Wider adoption of crypto could risk NPS disruption and system stability, per economists.
- Next, the IFWG will analyze local currency stablecoins by late 2026 to draft new policy responses.
Crypto Still Excluded From Legal Tender Status
South African regulators have reiterated that cryptocurrencies and stablecoins are neither money as defined in the country’s National Payments System Act nor funds, and are therefore not legal tender. In a joint statement, the South African Reserve Bank (SARB) and the Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA) said they are already conducting analytical work to explore the regulatory treatment of crypto assets for payment purposes.
The joint regulatory clarification responds directly to a shifting financial landscape in South Africa, where digital assets are rapidly transitioning from speculative investments to mainstream transactional tools. This domestic migration toward decentralized finance has intensified pressure on current monetary policies. Prominent South African economist Dawie Roodt argues that the country’s existing exchange control laws are fundamentally incompatible with modern capital flows, warning that a failure to modernize these regulations will inevitably accelerate consumer abandonment of the local currency in favor of more stable, digitized alternatives.
However, the regulators counter that widespread crypto adoption could compromise the efficiency of the National Payments System (NPS) and trigger broader systemic risks across the financial sector. To mitigate these vulnerabilities, the South African government aims to expand the regulatory perimeter of the NPS Act.
“The revision of the NPS Act will include provisions that would enable the SARB, at its discretion, to declare and regulate payment instruments other than money, such as crypto assets. Among other aspects, this will provide the SARB with the authority and discretion, should a compelling case arise, to designate crypto assets as payment instruments for domestic transactions,” the statement reads.
While the SARB is not envisioned to regulate “unbacked” crypto assets as payment instruments, the approach toward stablecoins will be different. Because stablecoins have been determined to possess some characteristics of digital money, they have the potential to be adopted as a payment instrument, the regulators said. Consequently, the Intergovernmental Fintech Working Group (IFWG) is analyzing the applicable use cases of local currency-pegged stablecoins to inform an appropriate policy and regulatory response.
Still, the South African central bank is unlikely to sanction or consider foreign currency-pegged stablecoins as payment instruments for domestic transactions because they “may result in the risk of currency substitution (‘dollarization’), which would weaken the monetary policy transmission.”
-
News18 minutes agoCalifornia’s primary for governor is undecided as candidates vie to be in the top two
-
Los Angeles, Ca2 hours agoCalifornia primary election results: governor and L.A. mayor races
-
Detroit, MI2 hours agoAnother bribery scandal hits Detroit. It involves the People Mover
-
San Francisco, CA2 hours agoWhat’s Worth More Than Cash in San Francisco Real Estate? Anthropic Stock
-
Dallas, TX2 hours agoDallas weighs $500 million‑plus repair plans as City Hall’s future comes up for debate
-
Miami, FL2 hours agoMiami biotech executive was followed into his condo by man who allegedly threw him from 25th floor
-
Boston, MA2 hours ago
What a World Cup ‘fan zone’ is and what Boston fans can expect in 2026
-
Denver, CO3 hours agoDefensive lineman Jordan Miller has a tough battle to make the Broncos’ final 53-man roster