Bitfinex paid a whopping $ 23 million commission to move $ 100,000

Bitfinex cryptocurrency exchange completed a hugely momentous transaction today by sending $ 100,000 worth of Stablecoin Tether (USDT) to Layer 2 subsidiary DeversiFi. For reasons unknown, the exchange paid 7,676 ETH, equivalent to $ 23.7 million, This is possibly the highest gas rate ever recorded on the Ethereum blockchain.

According to data from EtherScan, the deposit transaction began this morning at 11:10 UTC from Bitfinex’s second largest settlement via a second address to the DeversiFi wallet. The transaction comprised a “mistakenly high gas rate”, although DeversiFi is promoting a service to “avoid gas costs and frustration and save time and money on every transaction or exchange”.

To put the enormity of this rate in context, Keep in mind the fact that the average transaction rate on the Ethereum blockchain is currently 0.013 ETH, or $ 39.96. Even two weeks ago They transferred $ 2 billion worth of BTC between unknown wallets for a tiny fee of $ 0.78.

Bitfinex paid a whopping $ 23 million commission to move $ 100,000
Bitfinex paid a whopping $ 23 million commission to move $ 100,000

DeversiFi announced that preliminary investigations were in place to determine the most likely cause of the matter, adding that: “No customer pool at DeversiFi is at risk and this is an internal problem that the platform has to solve”, and that operations were not impaired.

In response, Bitfinex tweeted the following: “For transactions like this, the fees are borne by third-party integrations with Bitfinex,” suggesting that the exchange doesn’t pay the commission directly.

Another Gas Commission riddle with numerical similarities to the Bitfinex case occurred in June 2020 when three small and medium-sized transactions caused exorbitant costs. with a transfer of 0.55 ETH that pays USD 2.6 million in commissions.

At that time, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin voiced his approval with the narrative of human error, adding that: “I hope that EIP-1559 will significantly reduce the frequency of such events by reducing the amount of user attempt to manually set charges.”

However, experts in the field spread theories of extortion, fraudulent activity and even money laundering after it was confirmed that the last of the three transactions was a “malicious attack” when the wallet owner contacted the mining pool that made the transaction possible. In this case, the owner subsequently received 90% of the funds lost.

Similar Posts