•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Arbitrum Security Council froze 30,766 ether held by the KelpDAO exploiter on Arbitrum One, moving the funds to a protocol-controlled address before they could be bridged back to the Ethereum mainnet.
According to a CertiK Alert, the Security Council identified the exploiter’s holdings on Arbitrum One and transferred the 30,766 ETH to the protocol-controlled address 0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000DA0.
The freeze was carried out as part of an onchain security response to the KelpDAO incident, which involved an estimated total loss of approximately 292 million via a Layerzero bridge attack targeting rsETH. Some of the stolen funds were subsequently moved to Arbitrum One after the initial breach.
Peckshield flagged that the exploiter had already initiated a native bridge withdrawal from Arbitrum back to the Ethereum mainnet. The withdrawal used the 0xDA0 precompile, described as a standard mechanism for native ether transfers between the two networks.
The Security Council completed its intervention before the transfer was finalized, preventing the 30,766 ether from leaving Arbitrum and trapping the funds in the protocol-controlled address.
Lookonchain confirmed the freeze approximately 20 minutes after execution, noting that the funds had been moved to an Arbitrum-controlled address. The Security Council’s elevated administrative powers enable technical interventions during declared security emergencies.
Arbitrum governance has not announced how the frozen funds will be handled or whether they will be returned to affected KelpDAO users. The 30,766 ether remains in the protocol-controlled address.
Separately, Lido disclosed approximately 21.6 million in rsETH exposure through its EarnETH product and indicated it may deploy a 3 million loss buffer, as described in incident coverage.
The KelpDAO exploit triggered a liquidity crisis across DeFi lending, and onchain analysts have pointed to North Korea’s Lazarus Group as the likely culprit. Within the Ethereum community, Arbitrum’s ability to unilaterally move funds has drawn criticism, particularly given concerns about centralization for a network positioned as a decentralized layer-2.
Premium gym chains are entering a “golden era” that is ending or already in decline, as rising operating costs collide with shifting consumer preferences toward more flexible, community-based ways to exercise. Long-term memberships are shrinking, margins are pressured by higher rents and facility expenses, and competition from smaller, more personalized…
