@Scott Havens > a legitimate transfer per the encoded rules I have to agree; this is the logical result of the "move fast and break things" approach. People need to get their thinking straight about this kind of thing. It should have more properly been reported as security researchers collecting a $31 million bug bounty. If the people involved have a problem with paying that much, they need to design and implement a system with more checks and balances. And as I've said in other discussions here, we need to stop calling things "smart" when they're stupid. Back in the day, a device that wasn't useful without a network connection was properly called a dumb terminal. Maybe the better term for these things is "hackable contracts". Code is vulnerable, just like Bruce says, and any developer that doesn't understand that is a dumb hire. 7417261d67e5871959168abc64fc7d5e8f43a3522fcd24b24e0e8c2ede62a5bf