The Munchables project was robbed by a hacker. After one day, there was a surprising twist

A hacker who successfully attacked the Munchables protocol returned over $62 million worth of stolen ETH. Reason? And that's the most interesting thing!

Bad hacker

As blockchain researcher ZachXBT pointed out, a hacker who allegedly worked as a programmer on Munchables and is said to have ties to North Korea has returned his loot.

One by one, however. Munchables is a Web3-based gaming protocol. On March 26, it fell victim to a hacker attack that led to losses of over $62 million in ETH. Supposedly, one of the project's programmers, with ties to North Korea, was behind everything.

Good hacker

It seemed that all was lost. However, on March 27, Munchables reported that the dishonest programmer had agreed to share the private keys containing all the funds with his former colleagues. Yes, he gave back all the stolen ETH! And not wanting anything in return.

Munchables developer provided us with all private keys to help recover user funds. Specifically, a key that holds $62,535,441.24, a key that holds 73 WETH, and an owner's key that holds the rest of the funds.

– we read in fasting.

Tiesshun Roquerre, aka Pacman, behind Ethereum's Layer 2 Blast network as well as the non-fungible token (NFT) marketplace Blur, said in a post on X that the funds “were secured” on a secure wallet. He also noted that the former developer agreed to return the funds without ransom, while stating that efforts were made to safely transfer the funds to users.

Proposal to reverse the transaction

Before the developer returned the funds, X users asked Blast to roll back the chain, which means “rewinding” the blockchain to a point before the event occurred, which would effectively undo the hack. Did this scare the hacker?

Let us add that this last action is perceived as something contrary to the idea of ​​decentralization, because transactions on the blockchain are supposed to be irrevocable and immutable. In addition, Blast is already perceived as insufficiently decentralized.