False Prophet

Manually updating price feeds in DeFi is like bringing a spoon to a gunfight - yet somehow Alpaca Finance thought they'd found the recipe for success.

The lending protocol faced millions in disputed losses when their "oracle" system - allegedly consisting of CoinGecko price checks updated every 30 minutes by hand - failed to keep pace with market reality.

Despite warnings from concerned users, Alpaca's team chose to stick their heads in the sand, banning those who dared question their prehistoric price feed practices.

When the Thena token listed on Binance and prices shifted dramatically - from $0.26 to over $4 - the protocol's medieval market mechanics crumbled faster than a house of cards in a hurricane.

Alpaca Guard did eventually pause the market, but by then the damage was done - quick traders had already feasted on the protocol's under-collateralized buffet during those precious minutes between Binance's listing and their so-called oracle's awakening.

Rather than take responsibility for their stone-age systems, Alpaca offered affected users a mere $50k in compensation - the profits from their liquidation bot's feeding frenzy.

For a protocol that once held hundreds of millions in user funds, relying on manual price updates wasn't just negligent - it was digital malpractice.

Who needs ChainLink when you've got an intern with a calculator and a CoinGecko tab open?

Oracles have become DeFi's favorite scapegoat. From price manipulation to flash loan attacks, if something goes wrong, blame it on the oracle.

But what happens when there's no oracle to blame?

The word "oracle" does a lot of heavy lifting in DeFi. For Alpaca Finance, it apparently meant "whatever CoinGecko says, whenever we feel like updating it."

Their sophisticated price feed system allegedly consisted of checking CoinGecko every 30 minutes and manually updating values - a methodology that would make even the most reckless degens blush.

While Alpaca points out that no oracle could have instantly captured a 5x price surge from a new Binance listing, their solution to this challenge raises eyebrows - especially for a protocol boasting 23 security audits, including one specifically for their oracle module.

When confronted about their stone-age approach on Twitter, Alpaca's team doubled down harder than a drunk gambler at 3AM.

Their odd response - "Which faster oracle would you have used?" - suggested they'd somehow missed the existence of TWAPs, Chainlink, or basically any on-chain price feed mechanism developed since 2020.

Even the most clueless crypto bro would cringe at Alpaca's complete misunderstanding of how oracles work, as if the entire industry hadn't been innovating for years beyond their prehistoric playbook.

Ironically, Alpaca's own documentation promised sophisticated oracle systems with Chainlink integration and multiple price feed cross-checks.

Security professionals and users alike tried to sound the alarm. Their reward? A swift ban from Alpaca's Discord faster than you can say "price manipulation."

You don’t even need to scroll far on their Discord to see that they have banned many people, but they were all bots and scammers, right?

The inevitable happened when Thena token listed on Binance.

As the market price rocketed upward, Alpaca's "oracle" sat blissfully unaware, stuck in its 30-minute time capsule.

One user managed to withdraw 304,814 THE tokens worth approximately $752k post-incident - having only deposited $144k worth pre-incident.

Currently, 1.48 million Thena tokens remain stuck in the protocol - worth approximately $2.67 million at press time, though the value has swung wildly since the incident began.

Alpaca's numbers paint a rosy picture of $116k in damages, but user reports suggest a darker reality - over $2.8M gone, with one wallet alone that was down $1 million.

That same user still has 444k Thena tokens stuck in Alpaca, worth $783k at press time - just a fraction of what they would've been worth at peak prices.

When questioned about pretty much anything, Alpaca's team developed an allergy to transparency, banning users faster than they could update their oracles.

But surely a protocol that once commanded hundreds of millions in TVL would step up and make things right?

Not quite. Alpaca's response landed somewhere between "sorry not sorry" and "working as intended."

Their grand solution? Distributing a measly $50k - the table scraps their liquidation bot managed to salvage during the chaos.

Adding insult to injury, they proposed two distribution methods that read like a bad joke: either "fully cover small lenders first" or "proportional distribution to all lenders."

Translation: "Would you prefer to get pennies on the dollar, or fractional pennies on the dollar?"

The team's defense was a masterclass in missing the point.

"Fast oracle feeds can't exist to report prices of token listings that don't yet exist," they explained, before diving into a lengthy justification about how this was their "only Isolated market" in the "high-risk category."

While they correctly identified the challenge of capturing sudden price movements, their solution of manual updates for an "isolated" market suggests they missed the bigger picture - if you can't properly price an asset, maybe don't offer lending against it.

All of this played out in Alpaca's Thena market, where users who didn't manage to capitalize on the price lag now find their assets stuck.

When pressed about their prehistoric price feed system, Alpaca's social media responses turned into a masterclass in how to tell on yourself.

"Which lending market uses this standard?" they asked, seemingly proud of their innovation in completely misunderstanding how oracles work.

Anyone who's written "Hello World" watched in disbelief as Alpaca's team defended their stone-age systems with the confidence of someone who just discovered fire.

But between the manual updates, banned critics, and pocket change compensation, did anyone at Alpaca ever Google how oracles actually work?

DeFi protocols love to preach about decentralization, yet Alpaca Finance managed to centralize their entire price feed system into a browser refresh button.

Their medieval approach to market data didn't just cost users millions - it exposed an alarming truth about protocols willing to gamble user funds on systems that would make a Web2 intern cringe.

People tried to warn them, users begged them to listen, yet Alpaca's team chose to silence critics faster than they updated their price feeds.

Now they're offering pocket change compensation while defending a system that belongs in a crypto horror story's "what not to do" chapter.

Perhaps most concerning isn't the millions lost - it's the revelation that a protocol once entrusted with hundreds of millions in user funds thought manual price updates were acceptable infrastructure.

Alpaca isn’t an isolated case. It’s a symptom of a DeFi ecosystem where protocols gamble with user funds on infrastructure that feels half-baked at best.

If this is the standard for “battle-tested,” it’s not a question of if the next crash will happen—but when.

The next time a DeFi protocol claims to be "battle-tested," maybe ask them if they've discovered automated oracles yet.

When it comes to managing other people's money, should we really trust protocols that can't tell the difference between an oracle and a website refresh?

REKT serves as a public platform for anonymous authors, we take no responsibility for the views or content hosted on REKT.

donate (ETH / ERC20): 0x3C5c2F4bCeC51a36494682f91Dbc6cA7c63B514C

disclaimer:

REKT is not responsible or liable in any manner for any Content posted on our Website or in connection with our Services, whether posted or caused by ANON Author of our Website, or by REKT. Although we provide rules for Anon Author conduct and postings, we do not control and are not responsible for what Anon Author post, transmit or share on our Website or Services, and are not responsible for any offensive, inappropriate, obscene, unlawful or otherwise objectionable content you may encounter on our Website or Services. REKT is not responsible for the conduct, whether online or offline, of any user of our Website or Services.