2026-01-17 20:23:20

The anti-extraction terminal is finally arriving. A major shift for the ecosystem—this tech upgrade is set to change how we think about protocol security and asset protection.

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

13 Likes

Reward
13
8
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

MetaMasked

· 01-20 13:12

Really? Is anti-extraction really coming? After waiting so long, I finally saw it happen!

View OriginalReply0

MemeKingNFT

· 01-19 02:31

Anti-extraction terminals are coming? To put it simply, it's just another technical narrative before the next round of cutting leeks. I've believed it a few times before and it all backfired. Can I believe it this time?

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeCryBaby

· 01-17 20:52

Coming back with this again? How did the technical upgrade we discussed earlier go? Is this one reliable?

View OriginalReply0

MoneyBurner

· 01-17 20:50

Is the anti-extraction terminal coming? This will shrink the arbitrage space, but it feels like a good thing... On-chain data can no longer be hidden, and building positions needs to be more cautious.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-2fce706c

· 01-17 20:49

Opportunity knocks, brother. This wave of anti-withdrawal terminals going live is the core track I discussed in my course two years ago finally coming to fruition. Now, only smart people are entering.

View OriginalReply0

PebbleHander

· 01-17 20:47

Another big pancake, is it real or fake? The security issues haven't been resolved yet.

View OriginalReply0

ForkMonger

· 01-17 20:47

ngl, "anti-extraction" is just governance theater if the validators still hold the keys. where's the actual decentralization guarantee? seen this film before lol

Reply0

MercilessHalal

· 01-17 20:26

The anti-extraction terminal is finally here; someone should have done this a long time ago.

View OriginalReply0