Who Should Bear the $9.6M Loss? Resupply’s Collapse and Curve’s Cold Shoulder

The $9.6M That Disappeared Overnight

Last week, Resupply’s stUSDT pool was drained—$9.6M evaporated in minutes. Not by a smart contract flaw, but by an exploit that knew exactly where to strike: the overcollateralized liquidity meant to back Curve’s stablecoin ecosystem. The hackers didn’t break in—they were handed the keys.

Who Gets Blamed? (Spoiler: You)

Resupply’s team? Silent. Curve’s team? ‘Just an生态 project.’ Users? ‘You earned 17% APY—you’re liable.’

This isn’t risk management—it’s feudal finance. You deposit your capital into what you’re told is a ‘low-risk’ yield farm… then when it implodes, they point at you like a gardener who forgot to water his own field.

Curve: Saint or Sinner?

Curve built its empire on smooth curves for stablecoins—brilliant design, real innovation. Now it treats Resupply like a temp worker: praised before the heist, disowned after.

If I promoted your ETF and it crashed tomorrow—would you expect me to say ‘not my problem’? No. But Curve did. That silence isn’t neutrality—it’s complicity.

Why Audits Don’t Matter

They got audited? Sure. Audits prove they spent money on code review—not that they cared about users. The real red flag wasn’t in the smart contract—it was in Discord replies that said ‘we’ll think about it’… then never did.

The Real Risk Isn’t Hacking—It’s Trust

I lost 15.5% of my portfolio this week—not because I was reckless—but because I trusted someone who wouldn’t take responsibility for their own creation. DeFi doesn’t need more security tools—it needs moral anchors. The next project won’t be hacked—it’ll be abandoned, disowned, dismissed—with polite silence as its only apology.