#加密钱包安全风险 Seeing the Trust Wallet incident this time, what arises in my mind is not surprise but a familiar sense of helplessness. The $6 million theft seems shocking at first glance, but what truly chills the heart is the judgment provided by SlowMist—that the developer's device or code repository may have been compromised. This means the problem isn't with the wallet's algorithm design itself but lies upstream in the entire supply chain.

This reminds me of the 2016 The DAO incident, and subsequent cases of exchange hacks. Each time, we thought we had identified the core issue and strengthened protection at a certain link, but hackers always find a different way in places we didn't expect. From contract vulnerabilities to private key management, and now to infiltration of development environments, the evolution of security threats is quite clear—when defenses are strong enough, attacks will bypass them and target the source directly.

The Trust Wallet incident is especially heartbreaking because it serves a large user base, many of whom consider it a "relatively safe" choice. But security has never been absolute. Investors who experienced major ups and downs in 2017 and 2021 understand this truth—no matter how big the project or how well-known the application, it cannot escape the dual test of human nature and technology.

The question now before us is: what can we still trust? Cold wallets? But they still need to be connected to the internet during use. Self-custody? But most people lack sufficient security awareness. Exchanges? History has already proven that centralization is not the answer. Perhaps the only conclusion is: there is no perfect solution, only continuous vigilance and regular risk assessments. This industry is like that—every security incident is a reminder with real money that the cost of security awareness is far lower than the losses from an attack.