A recent post by Vet (@Vet_X0), an XRP Ledger dUNL validator, prompted an important discussion within the XRP community about whether the ledger should ever be rolled back in the event of a large-scale compromise of funds.
This conversation comes amid a major security breach in the crypto industry, where Bybit, a cryptocurrency exchange, reportedly lost $1.46 billion in ETH to hackers.
If a large compromise of XRP funds would happen on the XRP Ledger, would you be in favor to roll back the blockchain or not?
— Vet (@Vet_X0) February 22, 2025
Bybit’s Security Breach
The attackers employed a “musked UI” technique, deceiving all authorized signers of Bybit’s ETH multi-signature cold wallet into approving a malicious transaction.
Bybit’s CEO, Ben Zhou, confirmed the incident and assured users that other wallets remained secure and exchange operations continued as normal. However, recent reports suggest that the exchange accepts loans to cover withdrawals.
Responses From the XRP Army
Vet posed a hypothetical question to the XRP community: if a major compromise of XRP funds were to occur, should the XRP Ledger be rolled back?
Panos Mekras, a well-known figure in the XRP community, firmly opposed the idea. “No matter the amount or case, even if it was mine. The blockchain must keep going no matter what,” he stated, emphasizing that the network should not be altered for individual cases.
We are on twitter, follow us to connect with us :- @TimesTabloid1
— TimesTabloid (@TimesTabloid1) July 15, 2023
Vet agreed that fund compromises often stem from user errors, such as poor key management or inadequate security. However, he acknowledged the complexity of the issue if an entity like Ripple were to lose all its XRP holdings, saying situations like these are when blockchain systems are truly tested.
Another community member took a different approach, pointing to Ethereum’s rollback after the DAO hack. He argued that not rolling back the XRP Ledger could serve as a strong differentiator from Ethereum, enhancing its reputation for “credible immutability.” Vet appreciated this perspective, calling it “the considered answer I was looking for.”
Other responses introduced concerns about governance and moral hazard. One commenter noted that while immutability is often portrayed as an absolute virtue, the true priority should be serving the community. He suggested that if a rollback were achieved through a majority consensus among validators, it might not necessarily be negative.
On the other hand, some community members rejected the idea entirely, arguing that altering the ledger would undermine its fundamental principles. One commenter compared rolling back a blockchain to turning it into a centralized database, stating, “The integrity of the ledger is more important than anyone’s bags.”
Vet largely agreed with this stance but distinguished between a fund compromise caused by user error and a fundamental network issue. He noted that he would fully support a rollback if the breach violates the network’s core rules.
Disclaimer: This content is meant to inform and should not be considered financial advice. The views expressed in this article may include the author’s personal opinions and do not represent Times Tabloid’s opinion. Readers are urged to do in-depth research before making any investment decisions. Any action taken by the reader is strictly at their own risk. Times Tabloid is not responsible for any financial losses.
Follow us on X, Facebook, Telegram, and Google News
