BonkDAO has alerted law enforcement after losing more than $21 million from its treasury, while also working with exchanges and ecosystem partners to respond to the incident. The case has sparked debate across the crypto industry, with some describing it as a governance exploit and others arguing it was simply the result of the DAO’s voting rules.
How the Treasury Was Drained
According to blockchain analytics firm Lookonchain, the operation began on June 30 when an attacker submitted a proposal requesting the transfer of 4.426 trillion BONK tokens, valued at roughly $21.2 million, to a wallet under their control.
For the proposal to move forward, it required support representing at least 1% of BONK’s circulating supply. CoinGecko data shows the token supply stands at just under 88 trillion, meaning approximately 880 billion BONK were needed to reach quorum.
Beginning around July 4, the attacker accumulated 882.285 billion BONK through purchases on Bybit and Binance. That amount narrowly exceeded the threshold required to validate the vote. After securing enough voting power, the attacker cast all of the tokens in favor of the proposal, allowing it to pass and triggering the transfer of 4.426 trillion BONK into their wallet.
Blockchain analytics company Chainalysis confirmed the sequence of events, stating that the attacker acquired the tokens between July 4 and July 5 through a combination of purchases on centralized exchanges and borrowed assets obtained from decentralized finance lending platforms.
Roughly nine hours after the vote succeeded, Chainalysis reported that the attacker transferred about $188,000 to OKX, although PeckShield estimated the amount at $148,000. The remaining funds were placed into a newly created organization called BONK 2.0, which was established to govern the stolen treasury. Chainalysis said control of the new DAO rests with the attacker’s wallet, the exploiter wallet, and a third wallet believed to have financial ties to the attacker.
BonkDAO acknowledged the treasury loss in a statement on X, saying it had identified the exchange accounts used to acquire the voting tokens before the proposal passed. The organization added that it had contacted law enforcement and was coordinating with exchanges, cross chain bridge providers, and the Solana Foundation in an effort to contain the situation.
The incident weighed on BONK’s market performance. CoinGecko data showed the token trading at approximately $0.00000438 at the time of writing, down 7.4% over the previous 24 hours, although it remained nearly 5% higher for the week.
Governance Exploit or Fraud?
The controversy adds to a growing list of decentralized finance security incidents. CryptoRank recently reported that DeFi platforms have suffered almost $1 billion in losses to malicious actors so far this year.
However, not everyone believes the BONK incident qualifies as theft. World Liberty Financial advisor Ogle argued that the outcome appeared to follow the DAO’s established governance process.
According to Ogle, an individual legally purchased enough tokens, submitted a proposal, won the vote with minimal opposition, and had the proposal executed according to the protocol’s rules. Ogle added that reports claiming the governance website was inaccessible during the voting period could raise separate concerns if verified, but would not automatically make the on chain vote unlawful.
Others strongly disagreed. Ripple Chief Technology Officer Emeritus David Schwartz argued that using governance control over a shared treasury for personal enrichment could constitute fraud because governance participants may owe fiduciary responsibilities to other stakeholders. He also warned that BonkDAO’s lack of a formal legal structure could expose participants to partnership style legal liabilities in certain jurisdictions.#crypto#cryptonews https://coinsignals.net https://t.me/coinsignalpublic
