#UXLINK #UXLINKHack

In the early hours of September 23, 2025, UXLINK — hailed as the “largest Web3 social platform” — suffered a severe security incident. Losses exceeded tens of millions of dollars, the token plunged over 70%, and the attacker even minted 1 billion UXLINK on-chain in a dramatic twist.

Before the exploit, UXLINK had been a star in Web3 social:

• Mar 2023: UXLINK Dapp launched on Telegram, enabling social asset management and trading inside groups.
• Mar 2024: Raised $9M led by OKX Ventures.
• May 2024: Raised another $5M led by SevenX, HashKey Capital, and INCE Capital; registered users surpassed 10M.
• Jul 2024: Listed on multiple major exchanges; user growth and traction accelerated.
• Jun 2025: Outperformed on Upbit, topping gainers lists at times.

With its Web3 + Social Finance (SocialFi) positioning, UXLINK was seen as a potential “social gateway” app. One hack dimmed the halo overnight.

This incident quickly rocked the crypto space. Investors, exchanges, security firms, and even regulators paid close attention. This report reviews the attack end-to-end, analyzes the vulnerabilities and likely root causes, and examines the impact on tokenomics, user trust, and the broader industry.

Timeline: From Suspicious Transactions to On-Chain Minting

Phase 1: The First Signs

According to security firm Cyvers, at around 00:43 on September 23, suspicious on-chain activity involving UXLINK was detected.

The attacker first used delegatecall to strip admin privileges, then invoked addOwnerWithThreshold to tamper with ownership of UXLINK’s multisig. Funds were moved quickly thereafter:

• 4,000,000 USDT
• 500,000 USDC
• 3.7 WBTC
• 25 ETH

Assets were bridged and swapped to DAI or ETH, then dispersed across multiple addresses. Minutes later, another suspicious address received 10,000,000 UXLINK (~$3M) and began selling.

Phase 2: Official Confirmation and Initial Response

Roughly an hour later, UXLINK confirmed on X (Twitter):“We have identified a security issue in our multisig wallet, resulting in unauthorized transfers to CEXs and DEXs. We have contacted major platforms to urgently freeze related assets and are working with law enforcement and security partners to trace funds.”

The team added that:

• A large portion of stolen assets had been frozen;
• PeckShield and other firms were engaged to investigate;
• A clear compensation and account recovery plan would follow;
• User self-custody wallets were not directly compromised.

While this calmed some nerves, what followed was even more unusual.

Phase 3: The Attacker Mints 1,000,000,000 UXLINK

On-chain data then showed the attacker unauthorizedly minted 1 billion UXLINK. Given that UXLINK’s original total supply was 1 billion, this instantly doubled supply and severely diluted existing holders.

Complicating matters, the attacker sold across multiple CEXs and on-chain venues, reportedly cashing out around 6,732 ETH (~$28.1M) in short order. Ironically, the attacker appears to have been “hacked back” during a secondary incident — 542 million UXLINK was siphoned by a phishing contract. Funds then became highly obfuscated — worthy of a Hollywood script.

Price Crash and Exchange Actions

The attack cratered UXLINK’s market price. It briefly fell to $0.08529, down 71.9% in 24 hours — an abrupt cliff for an asset that had recently shined across exchanges.

Korean majors Upbit and Bithumb flagged UXLINK as a “trading caution” asset:

• Upbit suspended deposits/withdrawals;
• Both exchanges said they would conduct technical and compliance reviews before deciding on resumption.

Exchanges moved fast to prevent further user losses — and, implicitly, signaled concerns about the token’s economic integrity.

Root Cause: The Multisig Trap

After the incident, SlowMist co-founder Cosine wrote on X:“Most likely several private keys related to UXLINK’s Safe multisig were leaked. The attacker modified the multisig owners and moved funds.”

Multisig wallets are considered a high-security standard, requiring multiple keys to authorize transactions. Here, key management failed:

• Some keys were likely leaked;
• Privilege and access controls were weak;
• Monitoring and alerting were insufficient, allowing rapid exfiltration.

The takeaway: even with multisig, poor key distribution and governance can become a systemic risk.

Deeper Impacts

1) Tokenomics Shock

Minting 1B new UXLINK wasn’t just a technical flaw — it shattered the token model.

• Original total supply: 1B
• After attacker mint: 2B
• Circulating supply doubled, diluting existing holders;
• Confidence collapsed; the price nosedived.

This mirrors hyperinflation in traditional finance. A recovery is nearly impossible without immediate token swaps or model resets.

2) Trust Erosion

Despite assurances that user wallets weren’t affected, trust was badly damaged:

• Can funds be recovered?
• Was key leakage due to mismanagement?
• Will compensation be fair and timely?

Web3 projects rest on community consensus. Once trust breaks, even strong backers and user metrics can’t easily repair it.

3) The Lesson: Multisig ≠ Absolute Security

Key points the incident underscores:

• Multisig is not a silver bullet — private keys remain the weakest link.
• Many teams over-index on “we have multisig” while neglecting:
• Secure key storage and ops hygiene;
• Robust privilege separation;
• Regular audits and red-team drills.

Expect an industry-wide re-evaluation of multisig + key management practices.

4) Blowback on SocialFi

UXLINK is a flagship SocialFi project. The hack casts a shadow over the vertical. Expect more scrutiny of:

• Tokenized social relationships — is there a bubble?
• Real asset safety for users;
• Team security governance competency.

Near-term, SocialFi may cool as investors demand stronger security baselines.

UXLINK Announces a Token Swap Plan

UXLINK says it will initiate a token swap and work with CEX partners to restore confidence. The path is arduous:

• How to ensure new tokens won’t face similar exploits?
• How to compensate existing users fairly?
• How to rebuild credibility with both community and investors?

If these aren’t resolved convincingly, UXLINK risks the fate of many hacked projects: gradual marginalization.

Industry Reminder: Security Is the Bedrock

No matter the funding or user scale, a single lapse can wipe out years of effort. Blockchains remove the need for trust, but a project’s governance and security discipline ultimately decide its durability.

By contrast, some top exchanges and platforms have invested heavily in multi-layered security. SuperEx, for example, established early:

• User-controlled assets (self-custody integration);
• Dynamic identity verification;
• Multi-signature systems;
• Real-time risk monitoring;
• Regular third-party audits with leading security firms.

This multi-dimension approach has helped SuperEx keep user assets 100% secure and maintain platform stability through market turmoil and threat waves.

Conclusion

The UXLINK hack is more than a single project’s crisis — it’s a security siren for the entire Web3 industry. No matter how dazzling the tech or financial engineering, long-term success hinges on a simple question:Can you keep user assets truly safe?