EVM or Poor Security? The Debate Over Bybit’s $1.4 Billion Loss

Following the hack, Back took to X on February 22 to describe the technology as “complex, fragile, and blind-signed”.

"Another day, another EVM contract hack”, he wrote in another post, adding that billions have been lost over the years due to these issues.

Did you know?

Want to get smarter & wealthier with crypto?

Subscribe - We publish new crypto explainer videos every week!

What is Blockchain? (Animated Examples + Explanation)

SUBSCRIBE

ON YOUTUBE

Back believes these security failures damage trust in the crypto industry, including Bitcoin BTC $94,197.21 .

He said in a February 24 post on X, "People are misunderstanding critique of repeated EVM hacks, the latest and the largest Bybit $1.4 billion missing the point: EVM can go to zero, no one cares. The problem is the EVM dumpster fire hurts ecosystem credibility, which unfairly bleeds over to Bitcoin".

However, not everyone agrees with this view. Some argue that the Bybit hack was not caused by EVM flaws but rather by poor security measures, especially in handling multi-signature wallets. They point out that strong operational security can prevent such breaches, regardless of the underlying technology.

Back countered that Ethereum’s transaction verification process is fundamentally flawed. He explained that hardware wallets are supposed to confirm transaction details on-screen before approval, but EVM’s complexity makes this difficult.

He also noted that in Bybit’s case, addresses did not appear on hardware wallet screens, which made verification nearly impossible.

Meanwhile, Elliptic reported on the process used by the Lazarus Group, the hackers behind the Bybit hack, to cover their tracks. How? Read the full story.