Crypto Sleuth Ogle Proposes Security-Centric ‘Glue’ Blockchain

Preventing these heists relies on well-crafted smart contract codes and top-notch security. According to Ogle in an interview with CoinDesk, it’s also a matter of incentives. If an attacker estimates the potential cost to them outweighs the benefits of their exploit, they may choose not to attempt it at all.

The values underpinning Ogle’s upcoming blockchain, named Glue, aim to provide robust security. By increasing the risks for potential hackers or cybercriminals, it is hoped that they will be deterred from targeting Glue and instead focus their efforts elsewhere.

Despite holding a $1.4 billion valuation following a public token sale this year, Glue has managed to fly under the radar in the crowded market of new layer 1 blockchains. Amidst numerous competitors seeking the limelight among crypto traders and developers, Glue represents another fresh addition.

At industry conferences, Ogle’s entry opted for unconventional marketing strategies, such as distributing mysterious manilla envelopes akin to the ones used in the movie “Spy.” This approach aimed to generate buzz and pique the interest of attendees towards their yet-to-be-launched blockchain platform. Unlike more recognized names like Monad and Berachain, Ogle’s entry doesn’t boast the instant name recognition associated with established brands.

In conversations with CoinDesk, Ogle and SnapShot shared Glue’s approach, focusing on security and design. They believe it will attract both average individuals unfamiliar with crypto, and traditional financiers who prefer a more conventional investment platform.

Hub security

“Snapshot, the co-founder of Glue, expressed his ambition: ‘We aim to create something that can potentially hold its own against the banks.'”

I will analyze Glue as a platform that centralizes DeFi services within an “activity hub” for chain users. This level of selection and aggregation sets Glue apart from the development of most other blockchains. Typically, users on these platforms are required to search for the specific services they need independently.

From a user experience standpoint, SnapShot expressed that the term “centralization” may carry a negative connotation in the crypto sphere. However, they proposed the idea of having a more streamlined and centralized interface instead. Meanwhile, Ogle shared that Glue Hub aims to simplify on-chain onboarding, making it as seamless as using Coinbase.

As a crypto market analyst, I’d like to focus on the significant portion of crypto users, which according to SnapShot’s data, amounts to approximately 90%. These users predominantly utilize centralized exchanges for their trading activities. In contrast, there is a much smaller group, around “one million” users, who operate on-chain directly.

As a crypto investor, I understand that Glue Hub isn’t the sole platform for trading activities. The beauty of this chain lies in its permissionless feature, which allows anyone to develop and introduce new projects for the community to use. These innovative creations could potentially be integrated with Glue Hub if they undergo rigorous security checks such as commissioned audits.

As a cryptocurrency and blockchain analyst, I have observed that audits have gained significant importance in the crypto world beyond just ensuring the security and accuracy of smart contracts. Projects increasingly engage external chain-checking specialists to conduct thorough inspections of their smart contracts, aiming to root out any potential money-losing bugs or vulnerabilities. These audits, however, do not guarantee absolute protection against exploitation; numerous audited projects have fallen victim to hacks and breaches despite having “clean” audit reports. Nonetheless, these reports serve as a mark of confidence and validation for the project’s credibility in the eyes of potential investors.

In Ogle’s opinion, that practice carries things too far. He, a former auditor, noted that many projects tend to disclose only favorable reports while concealing unfavorable ones.

“That’s not good for security, for the cryptosphere itself,” he said.

Instead of Ogle proposing that top-tier projects on Glue undergo audits, which are financed by the chain through the Glue Security Fund, the founders mentioned that a small fee would be imposed on each transaction. This fee is intended to accumulate funds for the security fund, which subsequently supports various initiatives aimed at enhancing the overall security of the blockchain.

Audits don’t always work. Lending protocol Euler lost $200 million to a hack that slipped past 10 audits in two years. Ogle participated in Euler’s recovery as part of the war room that tracked down the hacker and negotiated the return of that money. Ogle claims he has a 65% success rate in getting money back for the 40-odd exploited projects he’s assisted.

As a researcher in this field, I can share that a designated fund exists specifically for my team and me to pursue individuals engaging in malicious activities on the Glue platform. This fund is known as the Glue Security Fund (GSF). Additionally, any security entity such as vigilante detectives, auditors, or analytics compliance tools can apply for grants from this pool of resources. The holders of the Glue token are responsible for deciding which projects will be funded with these funds.

One way to rephrase this is: The goal of GSF (Google Security Reward) is to deter hackers from attempting to breach Glue projects by providing a financial incentive. While it may not be possible to prevent all attacks, the presence of a substantial reward could make potential hackers think carefully before choosing a target that offers a bounty for being pursued.

In simpler terms, Glue’s transactions will necessitate numerous confirmations from users before funds can be transferred from their wallets. This standard configuration offers an opportunity for external applications to enhance security by identifying and alerting users of unusual financial activities.

This could save people from losing money to otherwise innocent-looking wallet interactions.