Apparently fake addresses for SHIB wormholes were removed from CoinMarketCap

CoinMarketCap removed the addresses for the SOL, BNB, and LUNA SHIB tokens from its page without explanation.

User @shibainuart of the Twitter account @shibainuart stated late on Wednesday that CoinMarketCap has removed three Shiba Inu (SHIB) addresses from the Binance Smart Chain, Solana (SOL) and Terra (LUNA) blockchains. At the time of this writing, only the SHIB token (ERC-20 (ETH)) is displayed on the website. Three weeks ago, Shiba Inu creators sparked a large Twitter backlash by claiming that their dog breed had been genetically modified “According to CoinMarketCap, SHIB’s three bogus contract addresses have been listed. Your money will be lost forever if you contact with these addresses.”

In response, CoinMarketCap explained that the addresses were wormhole addresses designed to facilitate cross-chain transactions. While the addresses are gone, the warning may still be read on the SHIB token main page on the site. CoinMarketCap has not provided a statement as to the reasons behind the removal of the wormhole addresses.

The Shiba Inu creators appear to have acknowledged this reasoning in a community letter published on Jan. 19. However, they also underlined the possible risk weaknesses of cross-chain bridges. Last month, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin noted, due to scale, 51 percent attacks on one single small-cap chain in a network of 100 interoperated blockchains might generate a system-wide pandemic. Last week, the largest decentralised finance heist took place on cross-chain bridge Wormhole. Hackers falsely produced $321 million worth of wrapped Ether on Solana and moved them onto the Ethereum network for redemption.

In addition, the developers believed that CoinMarketCap behaved unprofessionally during their correspondence, for example, in their lack of communication and use of “display of erroneous contracts,” “incorrect social media links,” “incorrect display of circulating supply,” etc., as reasons for standing by the claim that the contracts are “fake.”

Disclaimer: These are the writer’s opinions and should not be considered investment advice. Readers should do their own research.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Facebook
Twitter
Telegram

Recent Posts

Follow Us