In the unpredictable world of cryptocurrency, control is everything. Imagine holding 100 ETH — a life-changing sum for most — only to lose access in a single click. No scam, no phishing link, just a subtle flaw buried deep in legacy code. Yet, within hours, that loss turned into a rare digital miracle: the funds were recovered, thanks to the quiet vigilance of ethical hackers.
This real-life drama unfolded around Safe, one of the most trusted names in self-custody wallets. A user’s attempt to bridge funds across chains exposed a critical design limitation in older versions of Safe’s smart contracts — one that could have led to irreversible loss. But instead of disaster, the incident became a powerful testament to community responsibility and the importance of proactive security in decentralized ecosystems.
The Click That Nearly Cost Everything: Legacy Wallets Meet Multichain Reality
On June 3, 2025, crypto user @khalo_0x shared a harrowing experience: after using Safe’s official cross-chain bridge tool to transfer 100 ETH from Ethereum to Base, he discovered he had no control over the receiving address. The wallet existed — same address, same interface — but the signers were different. His funds were locked in a contract he didn’t own.
"I lost my life savings in one click using @safe last night. That’s after 8 years of holding ETH and avoiding scams. A UX bug within the official Bridge feature implied the destination address was my Safe on Base. It wasn’t."
This wasn't a hack in the traditional sense. It was an architectural blind spot. Khalo was using Safe v1.1.1, a version deployed back in 2020 — long before multichain interoperability became standard. At that time, Safe contracts weren’t designed with cross-chain consistency in mind.
👉 Discover how top traders secure their assets across chains with advanced tools.
Here's the technical crux: on newer chains like Base, if a Safe wallet hasn’t been explicitly deployed at a given address, anyone can deploy a new Safe contract there — even with different owners. This is known as front-running the deployment. In this case, the destination address on Base already had a Safe contract deployed — but not by Khalo.
White Hats to the Rescue: How Protofire Prevented a Disaster
As panic spread across social media, Safe team member Lukas Schor and engineer tschubotz.eth launched an investigation. What they found was unexpected — and deeply reassuring.
The Safe contract on Base wasn’t created by a malicious actor. It was deployed by Protofire, a well-known white hat security collective. Recognizing the risk posed by legacy Safe versions in a multichain world, Protofire had proactively deployed hundreds of these vulnerable addresses across various L2s — not to steal, but to protect.
Their mission? To prevent bad actors from exploiting the same loophole and tricking users into sending funds to malicious wallets disguised as their own.
Once Khalo’s identity and ownership were verified, Protofire immediately returned the full 100 ETH. No ransom, no drama — just silent stewardship in action.
This intervention transformed what could have been a devastating loss into one of the most uplifting stories in recent crypto history. It highlighted a crucial truth: the strength of Web3 isn’t just in its code, but in its community.
Lessons from Past Breaches: Is Your Wallet Truly Secure?
While this story ended well, it echoes broader concerns about wallet security — especially in light of earlier incidents involving Safe.
Earlier in 2025, Bybit suffered a $1.5 billion breach when attackers compromised a developer’s machine and altered Safe’s frontend interface. Users were redirected to a malicious version of the app, leading them to unknowingly sign away control of their funds.
Though fundamentally different — one was a supply chain attack, the other a protocol limitation — both events underscore a shared vulnerability: even the most secure systems depend on human trust and up-to-date infrastructure.
Safe has since patched its deployment logic. Modern versions ensure that Safe contracts are deterministically deployed across chains, meaning the same address always corresponds to the same signers — no matter which network you're on.
Additionally, Safe’s official bridging tool (powered by LI.FI) now includes enhanced warning systems:
- If a target chain already has code at your wallet address,
- And that code doesn't match your expected signer set,
- A clear alert will stop you before confirmation.
These changes reflect an evolving understanding: in a multichain future, consistency isn’t optional — it’s foundational.
What This Means for Self-Custody in the Multichain Era
Dragonfly partner @hosseeb called this “one of the most incredible crypto stories in years.” And he’s right — not because of the money involved, but because of what it reveals about Web3’s moral fabric.
“Sometimes, crypto is actually okay.”
Khalo’s story resonates because it mirrors so many others: users who’ve dodged scams for years, only to fall victim to poor UX or outdated tech. His words hit hard:
“Eight years of avoiding scams… and I lost it all to a UX error.”
That’s not failure — it’s feedback. The ecosystem must adapt.
Key Takeaways for Users:
- Upgrade your wallets: If you’re using Safe v1.1.1 or earlier, migrate to the latest version.
- Verify deployments: Before bridging large amounts, confirm that your wallet exists and is correctly configured on the target chain.
- Use trusted tools: Stick to audited bridges and interfaces with built-in safety checks.
- Assume nothing: Just because an address looks familiar doesn’t mean it behaves the same across chains.
👉 Stay ahead of vulnerabilities with real-time portfolio tracking and security alerts.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: Can anyone still exploit old Safe wallet versions today?
A: While possible in theory, widespread awareness and protective deployments by teams like Protofire have significantly reduced the risk. However, users should still upgrade to newer versions to ensure full protection.
Q: How can I check if my Safe wallet is multichain-safe?
A: Visit the official Safe interface and verify your contract version. If you're on v1.3.0 or later, you're protected by deterministic deployment across chains.
Q: Was Khalo’s ETH technically stolen?
A: No. The funds were sent to a valid Safe contract — just not one he controlled. Since Protofire owned that instance and acted ethically, recovery was possible.
Q: Why didn’t Safe design for multichain from the start?
A: In 2020, Ethereum was dominant, and cross-chain activity was minimal. The explosion of L2s and interoperability tools came later, revealing edge cases no one anticipated.
Q: Are other wallets affected by similar risks?
A: Any wallet relying on non-deterministic deployment models could face similar issues. Projects like Argent and Gnosis have since adopted cross-chain verification layers to prevent such confusion.
Q: What should I do if I suspect I’ve sent funds to the wrong contract?
A: Immediately reach out via official channels. If it’s a known white hat-controlled address (like Protofire), recovery may be possible with proper verification.
Toward a Safer Crypto Future
This incident is more than a cautionary tale — it’s a blueprint for resilience. It shows that while decentralization introduces complexity, it also enables solutions that centralized systems can’t replicate: open investigation, rapid community response, and ethical intervention without intermediaries.
The core keywords defining this event — Safe wallet, multichain security, white hat rescue, self-custody risk, ETH loss recovery, Smart Contract vulnerability, cross-chain bridge safety, and decentralized identity — are not just technical terms. They represent the evolving challenges of owning your digital life.
👉 Protect your crypto journey with institutional-grade security and multi-chain support.
As blockchain expands across dozens of chains, we must demand better from our tools — clearer warnings, consistent behavior, and default protections for legacy users. And we must celebrate those who act with integrity, even when no one is watching.
Because in crypto, sometimes the greatest breakthroughs aren’t technological — they’re human.