Crypto-exchange Bitfinex closed a major transaction on September 27 when it sent $ 100,000 Tether (USDT) stablecoin to the DeversiFi tier 2 sub-platform. For unknown reasons, the exchange paid 7676 ETH, which is equivalent to 23.7 million dollars, which is probably the largest gas commission ever registered on the Ethereum blockchain.
According to blockchain data from EtherScan, the deposit transaction started this morning at 11:10 UTC from the second largest Bitfinex wallet through a second address to the DeversiFi wallet. The transaction came with “incorrectly high gas fees”, although DeversiFi advertises the service to “avoid gas expenses and frustration, saving you time and money on every transaction or barter.”
To compare the size of these fees, you should consider the fact that the average transaction fee on the Ethereum blockchain is currently 0.013 ETH or $ 39.96. In addition, two weeks ago, $ 2 billion BTC was transferred between unknown wallets for a $ 0.78 microcommission.
DeversiFi said it has launched an investigation to find the most likely cause of the problem, adding: “No customer funds on DeversiFi are at risk, and this is an internal problem that DeversiFi must solve,” and “operations” are not affected.
In response, Bitfinex tweeted: “Third-party Bitfinex integrations will be charged a fee for such transactions,” indicating that the exchange will not directly bear the fees.
In June 2020, another gas payment appeared, numerically similar to Bitfinex, where seismic costs were recorded in three small and medium-sized transactions, with a single transfer of 0.55 ETH with a commission of 2.6 million dollars.
RELATED: Bitfinex launches the first L2 CeFi-to-DeFi bridge
At the time, Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin agreed with the description of human error and added: “I expect that EIP-1559 will significantly reduce the speed at which this type occurs by reducing the need for users to try to set fees manually.”
However, industry experts have spread theories about extortion, fraud and even money laundering after the last of the three transactions was confirmed as a “malicious attack” when the wallet owner approached a mining pool that made the transaction possible. In this case, the owner then received 90% of the lost money.