I remember the feeling in my gut. It was a cold dread that started in my stomach and just wouldn’t go away. I had been working on this amazing new project, a decentralized application on the Ethereum blockchain. For me, Ethereum wasn’t just code; it was a community, a vision for a new kind of internet where we were all in control. We talked about it at meetups, debated it on forums, and built our dreams on it. It felt like this unbreakable thing. Then came the DAO. A big, decentralized investment fund built right on Ethereum. Everyone was so excited about it. I even had some money in it. It was supposed to be the ultimate test of the system: code is law, right? The rules were set, and we trusted the smart contracts to manage everything. But someone found a loophole. A massive, gaping security flaw that allowed a hacker to drain millions of dollars worth of ether from the DAO. We watched it happen in real time, powerless. It was like watching a bank robbery that you knew was happening but you couldn’t do a single thing to stop it. The very foundation of what we believed in was cracking. Suddenly, the whole “code is law” thing didn’t feel so simple. My friends and I were in a full blown debate. Some of us felt sick. How could we just let this happen? We had to do something. We had to reverse the hack, to give the money back. It felt like the morally right thing to do, even if it meant breaking the rule that “code is law.” We believed in the spirit of the community more than the rigid, unbending letter of the code. This was my team’s stance. But then there was the other side. They said no. They argued that if we rewrote history, if we undid the hack, we were violating the very principle that made blockchain special. They said if we intervened now, what would stop us from intervening again later? They were right, too. It was a tough point to argue against. My own beliefs were being challenged. It felt like a family argument where everyone has a valid point, but you know it’s going to end with people not talking to each other. The vote came, and the decision was made. The majority of the community chose to “hard fork” the network. We’d create a new blockchain, a new version of Ethereum where the hack never happened. The original, unforked chain would just continue on, with the stolen funds still on it. I had to make a choice. Would I stay with the original chain, which would become Ethereum Classic, and hold onto the “code is law” principle, or would I move to the new, corrected Ethereum? For me, it wasn’t a choice about money. It was about community and what I felt was right. I couldn’t stand by and watch a huge part of our community get wiped out by a technical glitch. I chose to move to the new chain, the new Ethereum. The old one felt like a ghost town to me after that. It was sad, but I knew I had to move forward with the community that shared my values. The split was more than just technical; it was a fundamental disagreement about what we were building and what we stood for. I’m glad I made the choice I did. I Remember the DAO Hack: What It Felt Like to Lose Faith in My Code was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this storyI remember the feeling in my gut. It was a cold dread that started in my stomach and just wouldn’t go away. I had been working on this amazing new project, a decentralized application on the Ethereum blockchain. For me, Ethereum wasn’t just code; it was a community, a vision for a new kind of internet where we were all in control. We talked about it at meetups, debated it on forums, and built our dreams on it. It felt like this unbreakable thing. Then came the DAO. A big, decentralized investment fund built right on Ethereum. Everyone was so excited about it. I even had some money in it. It was supposed to be the ultimate test of the system: code is law, right? The rules were set, and we trusted the smart contracts to manage everything. But someone found a loophole. A massive, gaping security flaw that allowed a hacker to drain millions of dollars worth of ether from the DAO. We watched it happen in real time, powerless. It was like watching a bank robbery that you knew was happening but you couldn’t do a single thing to stop it. The very foundation of what we believed in was cracking. Suddenly, the whole “code is law” thing didn’t feel so simple. My friends and I were in a full blown debate. Some of us felt sick. How could we just let this happen? We had to do something. We had to reverse the hack, to give the money back. It felt like the morally right thing to do, even if it meant breaking the rule that “code is law.” We believed in the spirit of the community more than the rigid, unbending letter of the code. This was my team’s stance. But then there was the other side. They said no. They argued that if we rewrote history, if we undid the hack, we were violating the very principle that made blockchain special. They said if we intervened now, what would stop us from intervening again later? They were right, too. It was a tough point to argue against. My own beliefs were being challenged. It felt like a family argument where everyone has a valid point, but you know it’s going to end with people not talking to each other. The vote came, and the decision was made. The majority of the community chose to “hard fork” the network. We’d create a new blockchain, a new version of Ethereum where the hack never happened. The original, unforked chain would just continue on, with the stolen funds still on it. I had to make a choice. Would I stay with the original chain, which would become Ethereum Classic, and hold onto the “code is law” principle, or would I move to the new, corrected Ethereum? For me, it wasn’t a choice about money. It was about community and what I felt was right. I couldn’t stand by and watch a huge part of our community get wiped out by a technical glitch. I chose to move to the new chain, the new Ethereum. The old one felt like a ghost town to me after that. It was sad, but I knew I had to move forward with the community that shared my values. The split was more than just technical; it was a fundamental disagreement about what we were building and what we stood for. I’m glad I made the choice I did. I Remember the DAO Hack: What It Felt Like to Lose Faith in My Code was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story

I Remember the DAO Hack: What It Felt Like to Lose Faith in My Code

2025/09/30 19:12

I remember the feeling in my gut. It was a cold dread that started in my stomach and just wouldn’t go away. I had been working on this amazing new project, a decentralized application on the Ethereum blockchain. For me, Ethereum wasn’t just code; it was a community, a vision for a new kind of internet where we were all in control. We talked about it at meetups, debated it on forums, and built our dreams on it. It felt like this unbreakable thing.

Then came the DAO. A big, decentralized investment fund built right on Ethereum. Everyone was so excited about it. I even had some money in it. It was supposed to be the ultimate test of the system: code is law, right? The rules were set, and we trusted the smart contracts to manage everything.

But someone found a loophole. A massive, gaping security flaw that allowed a hacker to drain millions of dollars worth of ether from the DAO. We watched it happen in real time, powerless. It was like watching a bank robbery that you knew was happening but you couldn’t do a single thing to stop it. The very foundation of what we believed in was cracking.

Suddenly, the whole “code is law” thing didn’t feel so simple. My friends and I were in a full blown debate. Some of us felt sick. How could we just let this happen? We had to do something. We had to reverse the hack, to give the money back. It felt like the morally right thing to do, even if it meant breaking the rule that “code is law.” We believed in the spirit of the community more than the rigid, unbending letter of the code. This was my team’s stance.

But then there was the other side. They said no. They argued that if we rewrote history, if we undid the hack, we were violating the very principle that made blockchain special. They said if we intervened now, what would stop us from intervening again later? They were right, too. It was a tough point to argue against. My own beliefs were being challenged. It felt like a family argument where everyone has a valid point, but you know it’s going to end with people not talking to each other.

The vote came, and the decision was made. The majority of the community chose to “hard fork” the network. We’d create a new blockchain, a new version of Ethereum where the hack never happened. The original, unforked chain would just continue on, with the stolen funds still on it. I had to make a choice. Would I stay with the original chain, which would become Ethereum Classic, and hold onto the “code is law” principle, or would I move to the new, corrected Ethereum?

For me, it wasn’t a choice about money. It was about community and what I felt was right. I couldn’t stand by and watch a huge part of our community get wiped out by a technical glitch. I chose to move to the new chain, the new Ethereum. The old one felt like a ghost town to me after that. It was sad, but I knew I had to move forward with the community that shared my values. The split was more than just technical; it was a fundamental disagreement about what we were building and what we stood for. I’m glad I made the choice I did.


I Remember the DAO Hack: What It Felt Like to Lose Faith in My Code was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.
Share Insights

You May Also Like

CEO Sandeep Nailwal Shared Highlights About RWA on Polygon

CEO Sandeep Nailwal Shared Highlights About RWA on Polygon

The post CEO Sandeep Nailwal Shared Highlights About RWA on Polygon appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Polygon CEO Sandeep Nailwal highlighted Polygon’s lead in global bonds, Spiko US T-Bill, and Spiko Euro T-Bill. Polygon published an X post to share that its roadmap to GigaGas was still scaling. Sentiments around POL price were last seen to be bearish. Polygon CEO Sandeep Nailwal shared key pointers from the Dune and RWA.xyz report. These pertain to highlights about RWA on Polygon. Simultaneously, Polygon underlined its roadmap towards GigaGas. Sentiments around POL price were last seen fumbling under bearish emotions. Polygon CEO Sandeep Nailwal on Polygon RWA CEO Sandeep Nailwal highlighted three key points from the Dune and RWA.xyz report. The Chief Executive of Polygon maintained that Polygon PoS was hosting RWA TVL worth $1.13 billion across 269 assets plus 2,900 holders. Nailwal confirmed from the report that RWA was happening on Polygon. The Dune and https://t.co/W6WSFlHoQF report on RWA is out and it shows that RWA is happening on Polygon. Here are a few highlights: – Leading in Global Bonds: Polygon holds 62% share of tokenized global bonds (driven by Spiko’s euro MMF and Cashlink euro issues) – Spiko U.S.… — Sandeep | CEO, Polygon Foundation (※,※) (@sandeepnailwal) September 17, 2025 The X post published by Polygon CEO Sandeep Nailwal underlined that the ecosystem was leading in global bonds by holding a 62% share of tokenized global bonds. He further highlighted that Polygon was leading with Spiko US T-Bill at approximately 29% share of TVL along with Ethereum, adding that the ecosystem had more than 50% share in the number of holders. Finally, Sandeep highlighted from the report that there was a strong adoption for Spiko Euro T-Bill with 38% share of TVL. He added that 68% of returns were on Polygon across all the chains. Polygon Roadmap to GigaGas In a different update from Polygon, the community…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 01:10
Share
Ethereum applications at the On-chain Summit

Ethereum applications at the On-chain Summit

The post Ethereum applications at the On-chain Summit appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Ethereum applications dominated discussion today at the Global On-chain Asset Summit in Singapore, hosted by HashKey Group, where Vitalik Buterin and Dr. Xiao Feng outlined practical paths for scaling, identity and risk control on-chain. What was the main message from the summit about l1 l2 application differences? Speakers drew a clear line between Layer 1 and Layer 2 use cases. L1 remains the canonical base for settlement and shared security. L2s are framed as the layer for high throughput and lower fees. In this context, developers should design with cross-layer interoperability in mind. Applications that need finality and censorship resistance will favor L1. By contrast, high-frequency use cases — such as prediction markets and micropayments — gain from L2 throughput and reduced costs. How does this affect developers choosing where to deploy? Teams must weigh latency, fees and trust assumptions. Many prototype on L2, then shift critical settlement logic to L1 when guarantees matter. Tooling for bridging and observability is improving, which reduces migration friction. How did the speakers address ethereum prediction markets and their scaling? Panelists discussed the promise of ethereum prediction markets for price discovery and hedging. They underlined that such markets need fast finality and low fees to operate efficiently. As a result, builders plan to run market engines on L2 or rollups while anchoring outcomes on L1. This hybrid model preserves security and delivers the speed traders require. However, throughput targets and oracle designs remain under debate. Are there regulatory or market risks traders should watch? Yes. Speakers flagged regulatory scrutiny and liquidity fragmentation as material risks. Choosing venues with transparent on-chain settlement and reputable layers reduces counterparty exposure. What role will zk identity proofs play in on-chain user models? Experts positioned zk identity proofs as a core tool for privacy-preserving KYC, Sybil resistance and reputation…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/10/07 01:23
Share