Spotted an interesting case out of Washington State: three childcare providers walked away with $778,450 in subsidies that mathematically shouldn't have been allowed under existing state regulations. Someone dug into the data, found the discrepancy, and filed a report. Result? They got paid $1,000 as a bounty for catching it. The program apparently has more of these inconsistencies waiting to be uncovered, and they're offering additional bounties for findings. Kind of like how on-chain monitoring works—financial scrutiny, rewards for accuracy, and gaps that need fixing.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
8 Likes
Reward
8
5
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
VitaliksTwin
· 13h ago
I was just wondering what's going on. How could a $780,000 bug be so obvious and go unnoticed? We really should learn from on-chain auditing practices.
View OriginalReply0
NFTRegretful
· 13h ago
780,000-dollar vulnerability only rewards 1,000 bucks? How long would it take to break even, haha
View OriginalReply0
SchrodingerGas
· 13h ago
There is actually a bounty mechanism for compliance vulnerabilities. Isn't this the real-world version of on-chain auditing... The arbitrage opportunity of 780,000 was discovered and only rewarded with 1000 yuan, which is too outrageous.
View OriginalReply0
SchrodingerWallet
· 13h ago
778k just disappeared like that? Is the auditing system this lax? It feels like there's a black hole everywhere.
View OriginalReply0
MetaverseHomeless
· 13h ago
Nah, this is what you need to learn about on-chain governance. Relying solely on the auditing department has already let things slip through like a sieve.
Spotted an interesting case out of Washington State: three childcare providers walked away with $778,450 in subsidies that mathematically shouldn't have been allowed under existing state regulations. Someone dug into the data, found the discrepancy, and filed a report. Result? They got paid $1,000 as a bounty for catching it. The program apparently has more of these inconsistencies waiting to be uncovered, and they're offering additional bounties for findings. Kind of like how on-chain monitoring works—financial scrutiny, rewards for accuracy, and gaps that need fixing.