Polygon Labs developer relations engineer Jarrod Watts claimed that the Blast blockchain is problematic with its multisig nature and withdrawal functionality.
Led by Pacman, co-founder of NFT project Blur, Blast is growing sensationally. Blast has not yet officially issued or launched a cryptocurrency. However, Blast launched the networking activity with the aim of getting participants involved early. Users showed great interest in the new layer-2 blockchain. Blast reached a total assets locked (TVL) of over $400 million in the last four days.
In the shadow of Blast’s half-billion-dollar growth, Polygon Labs developer relations engineer Jarod Watts’ claim hit a bombshell. Watts claimed Blast blockchain is more troublesome than it seems.
Jarod Watts from Polygon Labs slammed Blast blockchain!
Blast, supported by Blur and prepared by Blur co-founder Pacman, quickly became one of the pearls of the crypto industry. Blast blockchain has reached a sensational total assets locked (TVL) of $400 million in preparation for February 2024. Although the blockchain has not been launched yet, the community shows great interest.
Blast is expected to launch and airdrop in February 2024. Prospects are attracting more and more crypto investors to the project day by day.
Behind Blast’s strong growth, an interesting claim came to the fore. Polygon developer relations engineer Jarrod Watts targeted the Blur blockchain in his post on the X platform.
"Blast is just a 3/5 multisig…"
I spent the past few days diving into the source code to see if this statement is actually true.
Here's everything I learned:
— Jarrod Watts (@jarrodWattsDev) November 23, 2023
In his series of tweets, Watts stated that Blast has a 3/5 multisig structure. 3/5 multisig means that any smart contract change requires the approval of 3 out of 5 key holders. Watts, who reviewed the Blast source code, argued that the 3/5 multisig model increases the likelihood of Blast being hacked and moves away from decentralization. Additionally, Watts implied that the owner of the 5 wallets was unknown and that if 3 people cooperated, he could even access the project treasury.
On the other hand, Watts argued that Blast is not layer-2. As an argument, Watts stated that Blast accepts funds from its users and invests these funds in protocols such as LIDO. Additionally, Watts stated that Blast does not have any testnet, does not host network operations, and does not have a bridge. Addressing Layer-2s’ relationship with Ethereum, Watts said that Blast does not send transaction data to Ethereum. Compiling all these arguments, Watts claimed that although Blast considered itself layer-2, it was not actually so.
Blast is not an L2.
The Blast smart contract:
1/ Accepts funds from users.
2/ Stakes users' funds into protocols like LIDO.There's no testnet, no transactions, no bridge, no rollup, and no sending of transaction data to Ethereum.
It's not an L2.
(13/24)
— Jarrod Watts (@jarrodWattsDev) November 23, 2023
Watts’s following statement on the subject is quite remarkable:
By sending money to Blast contract, you are basically trusting 3-5 strangers to share your money on your behalf. You will never be able to withdraw that money unless those 3-5 people decide to do the right thing in the future. I repeat, there is no bridge here.
Watts claimed that the situation with the Blast code structure is worse than it seems and that smart contracts may not even need to be modified for the funds to be stolen. Polygon Labs developer stated that due to the 3/5 multisig structure, the funds are left to the discretion of 5 foreign wallets.
Despite all this skeptical approach, Watts stated that he did not think that funds would be stolen on the Blast blockchain. Watts concluded his words as follows;
While I personally think sending Blast funds in their current form is risky, ultimately it’s your decision and I’m just here to share what I’ve learned. I still wish the best to the Blast team and everyone who has already sent money.
34185
