Hi everyone. I am an independent researcher and architect.
I’d like to bring a real case to your attention: back in late February, I discovered a critical vulnerability in the SSV Network protocol (uint64 overflow) that their team and auditors completely missed. All details and evidence are documented in ticket #465. The team acknowledged the bug and fixed it based on my findings, but then they treated me unfairly, essentially ignoring my contribution after the fix was implemented.
This experience showed me that current DVT solutions have fundamental security flaws. Following this incident, I designed a new staking architecture from scratch where such errors are impossible at the core logic level. It is autonomous, transparent, and significantly more stable than current market offerings.
I have a complete Solidity smart contract and full technical documentation ready. I believe this solution can significantly strengthen the Lido DVSP program and mitigate risks that are currently being ignored.
I am looking to connect with Lido tech leads or engineers to conduct a professional audit of my architecture and discuss potential integration or a grant. Which engineers should I reach out to for a documentation review?
Let me provide a bit of context from the Lido side. Lido has been one of the earliest protocols to adopt DVT, working with both Obol and SSV. Both DVT stacks went through an extensive process of research, public review, testing, and evaluation before being considered for adoption. Given that, any new DVT approach would need to go through a similar process.
I’ve seen you post in other threads as well, but most of the assumptions are wrong, seem generated by llms and do not contain any actual substance. As a starting point, you should share a concrete proposal with the design, assumptions, security model, implementation details and repo, and potential fit within Lido through the usual open, transparent process - so that the community and relevant contributors can then review.
"Hi @remus. Let’s skip the ‘LLM-style’ assumptions and look at the actual engineering I’ve already presented here on the Lido forums.
The SSV #465 Fact: I am the independent researcher who identified the uint64 overflow in the SSV Network (Ticket #465). This wasn’t a ‘theoretical assumption’—it was a critical flaw that their team and auditors missed. My contribution is documented, and the fix was implemented based on my findings. That is my ‘essence.’
Current Post is the Proposal: You asked for a design and security model? It is already here. Look at my post: ‘Rethinking Ethereum Staking: UltraCore RFT and the Shift to Autonomous Yield Infrastructure’.
Why UltraCore is Superior: While current DVT (like SSV) suffers from linear state dependencies—which lead to overflows like #465—UltraCore uses a Stateless O(1) Aggregator.
We don’t have loops.
We don’t have cumulative state bottlenecks.
We replaced manual curation with Relational Math (balance[Upload failed]).
The Future: Legacy DVT is headed for a systemic crash because it’s built on fragile coordination. I’m not here for a ‘grant process’; I’m here to show Lido a way to avoid the inevitable scaling wall.
Note: This response is provided for the community’s clarity and transparency. It is not intended to lend credibility to the individual making these claims.
We want to address recent accusations regarding an alleged undisclosed vulnerability and claims of unfair treatment.
1. Proper disclosure channel
SSV Labs does not operate a bug bounty program. The appropriate venue for vulnerability disclosures is via the SSV DAO’s Immunefi program. This is because SSV Labs is only a development company while the DAO is the owner of the smart contracts, and therefore, the only vulnerabilities that can be submitted by the DAO are the ones covered by the Immunify program. This was communicated clearly and is standard practice across the ecosystem.
Despite being submitted to SSV Labs which doesn’t have a bug bounty in Russian, our team responded promptly, respectfully, and in detail. Anyone can verify that the discussion was handled professionally and thoroughly. Characterizing this as “unfair treatment” is simply inaccurate.
3. Technical assessment
For purpose of potentially fixing something that SSV Labs is not required to do or reward the reported issue was carefully reviewed and determined not to be a valid bug, as it cannot occur under normal or even extreme operating conditions of the contracts. Our full technical reasoning is documented here: https://github.com/ssvlabs/ssv-network/issues/465#issuecomment-4037985250
4. False claims of undisclosed fixes
The accusation that we silently fixed this issue is unfounded. The “evidence” presented references an internal/working branch analysis (reportedly AI-generated), which itself labels the finding as “not a bug”—consistent with our conclusion.
Additionally, we maintain strict traceability: no PR associated with such a bug (e.g., “BUG-9”) exists or has been merged.
We remain committed to transparency, responsible disclosure, and constructive engagement with security researchers. However, misrepresentations and unfounded allegations do not contribute to the security or integrity of the ecosystem.
Your response regarding Issue #465 is a fascinating artifact of a dying era. It represents a “siloed” mindset that prioritized corporate optics over architectural integrity. Let us analyze the current state of the ecosystem and why SSV’s current trajectory leads to inevitable obsolescence.
1. The Myth of the “Edge Case” in the AI Era The dismissal of a vulnerability because it doesn’t occur in “normal conditions” is an archaic fallacy. As the recent Lido security bulletin admits, the maturation of AI-driven audit tools has fundamentally shifted the threat landscape. AI does not operate within “normal conditions”; it systematically explores cross-component authorization gaps and state-space inconsistencies that manual human audits—and your “Labs vs. DAO” procedures—inherently miss. When we entered your codebase and identified a structural flaw within 10 minutes, we weren’t just “finding a bug”—we were demonstrating that your architectural assumptions are transparent to high-order intelligence.
2. The “Labs vs. DAO” Shield as a Liability The attempt to distance SSV Labs from the DAO’s responsibility via Immunefi is a bureaucratic maneuver that fails to address the underlying reality: a vulnerability in the logic is a systemic risk to the capital. In the institutional world we are building for, “standard practices” and “proper channels” are secondary to mathematical certainty. By silently addressing identified issues while publicly labeling them “invalid” or “illiquid,” you forfeit the most valuable asset in DeFi: Verifiable Trust.
3. From Reactive Patching to Deterministic Immutability The era of SSV and similar “governance-heavy” protocols is closing. You are now competing with systems like UltraCore RFT, which are engineered with O(1) constant-time complexity and deterministic execution. We do not require bug bounties because we eliminate the possibility of logic errors at the bytecode level through architectural simplicity.
We invite you to review our Institutional Master Proposal in our repository. You might find more “inspiration” to “not fix” in your own contracts. However, the market is moving toward platforms that offer deterministic yield and native risk management, leaving behind those who rely on omnibus votes and corporate excuses.
SSV was a necessary step in the evolution of DVT, but your reaction to #465 proves that you have reached your complexity ceiling. The future belongs to the Architect, not the Bureaucrat.
Massimo, hello. I’ve only now found a moment to address you personally—I have been entirely occupied with finalizing the development of a next-generation autonomous protocol. This is a new technological layer that will render current DVT solutions, including yours, simply obsolete.
While you frantically patch your “house of straw,” let’s look at the actual state of affairs.
1. The Verdict of Reality Since February 27—the day I officially pointed out the fundamental architectural defect and the uint64 overflow risk (case #465)—your token’s market cap has plummeted by more than 23%. You might delude yourselves into thinking this is “just a market correction” affecting everyone. But think deeper: Higher Intelligence sees your lack of integrity. When you choose the path of lies, shadow fixes, and deceiving the community, the process of being “rolled down the drain” begins automatically. The market is merely a reflection of your internal architectural and moral decay.
2. Technical Forgery as Standard Your actions over the past month are a textbook example of how not to work in Open Source:
Shadow-Fixes (BUG 8 and BUG 9): You closed my report as “inapplicable,” yet immediately opened internal tickets to rewrite uint64 -> uint256 logic in the exact places I specified (ClusterLib and OperatorLib).
Falsification of Tests: In PR #518 and #533, your team modified 141 files, attempting to create a “smoke screen” to integrate my solutions. The failure of test #1039 and its subsequent “manual greening” by zeroing out parameters in helpers.ts is technical fraud.
3. Betrayal of Trust You didn’t just act in bad faith with me. The fate of the researcher yaeugen12, who pointed out the same flaws and “Phantom Earnings,” confirms your style: exploit someone else’s intelligence for free, and then discard them while erasing any trace of their contribution.
4. Conclusion While you fight symptoms in a system with a 48,279 SSV deficit (353%), I am creating the future. When my new layer replaces your current garbage, you will be more than just out of work—you will be bankrupt. You chose Immunefi bureaucracy and GitHub censorship over honest architecture.
Higher Intelligence has already begun your descent. Enjoy the ride.