Flow (FLOW)

Memories of baseless altcoin investment 5 years ago, when everyone was easily making money with coins.. I put a small amount into the coin with the highest trading volume. At that time the average price was 32,000 KRW. And it turned out to be my peak 🫠 Knowing nothing about the coin, when it fell I thought “Is this an opportunity?” and kept adding. and adding. When I finally came to my senses I realized I had invested 50 million KRW as principal, and didn’t even know I’d put that much in. “Let’s treat it as nonexistent money. It’ll recover someday.” So I gave up 🥲 After forgetting about the coin and living normally, last year I opened my account one day and saw -90%. I told my husband, “Sell everything. I’ll help you recover.” With tears I cut my losses. -90% sell completed. And today, by chance I logged into Upbit. Delisting news.

"I just enjoyed the product...I didn't even know what Flow blockchain was." 🤣 Normies don't care what chain it's on. They only care about the product itself. Here's me and @AndreaMYellie talking about consumer crypto and how @NBATopShot onboarded millions to crypto. https://t.co/WGgLiApy79

What happened to Adam Neumann’s Flow and the $350M seed?

The FLOW project has experienced a major risk event. Based on our assessment of user asset safety, Huobi HTX promptly suspended all FLOW-related trading. After the incident, we have been in deep communication with the project team. Shockingly, Flow's current handling plan is extremely brutal: they intend to unilaterally freeze, and even “indiscriminately destroy,” wallet assets—including those of major exchanges—to compensate for the technical flaw. This not only involves hacker funds but also a large amount of innocent users' legitimate assets! The decentralized spirit of blockchain should not be used by project teams to cover up neglect. Looking back at historical cases, even in numerous major vulnerabilities and hacking incidents, mainstream public chains rarely “roll back results” by directly stripping innocent holders of their assets. Instead, the industry tends to mitigate risk through market clearing, compensation funds, or community governance mechanisms.   If such behavior is normalized, it will challenge the asset‑security boundaries of all centralized exchanges—today it’s FLOW, tomorrow it could be any project with strong protocol‑layer permissions. ▶︎Cause and Process According to disclosed information, the FLOW network suffered a severe security vulnerability at the protocol layer. Attackers minted and circulated a large amount of FLOW tokens without authorization, undermining the token supply and asset integrity. After the incident, the market transferred risk through real trades, causing price and position structures to shift.   However, during subsequent handling, the FLOW team did not resolve the issue through thorough consultation with exchanges and users. Instead, they activated an “Isolated Recovery” scheme, using protocol‑layer authority—without holding private keys—to forcibly transfer and freeze on‑chain assets they identified.   It is crucial to note that the transferred and restricted assets include a substantial amount of user holdings obtained via legitimate secondary‑market trades. These users neither participated in the vulnerability nor benefited from the illegal minting, yet their assets were incorporated into the disposal scope, and control was unilaterally stripped.   This approach exceeds mere “bug fixing” and touches the core boundary issue of the blockchain ecosystem: does a project have the right to retrospectively seize innocent users’ legitimate assets?  ▶︎Our Ongoing Response 1. Continue negotiations with the FLOW project team. We have repeatedly demanded clear explanations on disposal boundaries, asset classification standards, and future plans, urging them to respect the legitimate rights of ordinary users and exchange‑held assets, and to avoid expanding damage through unilateral technical measures.   2. Develop a user protection plan for worst‑case scenarios. While not ruling out extreme outcomes, we have activated internal assessment mechanisms, closely monitor project developments, and explore potential risks and protective measures to address possible losses to user assets. The core principle remains singular: maximize protection of users’ legitimate assets and rights. ▶︎Finally, we reaffirm our stance: Regardless of the technology