The Ethereum ‘rollback’ idea was a joke

Calls for a coordinated Ethereum “rollback” after the Bybit hack were bad-faith narratives designed to spread confusion

article-image

MasterOfVectors/Shutterstock modified by Blockworks

share


This is a segment from the 0xResearch newsletter. To read full editions, subscribe.


First, let’s get one thing clear. No serious person in the Ethereum community was advocating to “rollback” after the $1.5 billion Bybit hack.

These are simply not genuine debates. As some have pointed out, they’re more like an external psyop designed to sow confusion.

Ethereum has never performed a rollback. The term itself is a misnomer. A true rollback would require reversing all transactions since the Bybit hack — disrupting DeFi, liquidity pools and every user who has transacted in that timeframe. That’s not how Ethereum works.

Instead, critics point to the 2016 DAO hard fork as some sort of precedent — but that was not a rollback either. For a bit of history, The DAO exploited locked funds in a time-delayed smart contract, meaning the hacker had not yet moved the stolen ETH. The community opted for an “irregular state change” — not merely semantics — transferring the ETH to a safe contract before it could be moved.

Even though it was in no way a chain-wide reversion, those who disagreed — around 20% of the network — continued using the old chain, causing a fork now known as Ethereum Classic.

Since The DAO’s fork, Ethereum has had multiple “opportunities” to intervene in major hacks — but has never done so, demonstrating that its threshold for any intervention attempt is exceptionally high:

  • 2017 Parity Multisig freeze – $180 million locked forever.
  • 2022 Ronin bridge hack – $620 million stolen by North Korean hackers.
  • 2023 Multichain Exploit – hundreds of millions drained.

In all cases, no intervention. Even if it were technically feasible (which it isn’t), it would violate the very ethos of the decentralized credibly neutral network. If Ethereum didn’t intervene to recover one of its own co-founder’s funds (Parity’s Gavin Wood) — eight years ago when ETH’s market cap was about 7% of what it is today — there’s no reason to believe Bybit would receive different treatment.

Well-meaning critics vs trolling narratives

It’s important to separate two types of critics.

On one side, there are genuine misunderstandings in my view, like those expressed by Bybit CTO Larsson, lamenting the admittedly unpleasant consequences of the theft. But unless the entire Ethereum network itself is at existential risk, there’s practically nothing anyone can do — not Vitalik, not the Ethereum Foundation.

On the other side, we have bad-faith actors, engagement farmers and trolls who are pretending there’s a debate when none exists.

Loading Tweet..

As @ChainLinkGod pointed out, the Bybit hack was a centralized exchange failure, not a smart contract exploit. The attack method — compromising the multisig signers’ machines — could have just as easily been used to steal bitcoin instead of ETH. Yet, when BTC is stolen from exchanges, there’s never a similar push for a rollback — because, just like Ethereum, it’s infeasible.

The irony is that Bitcoin maximalists (assuming they don’t know full well that it won’t happen) expose the emptiness of their own FUD — if Ethereum were centralized, the network might be compelled to attempt some action. Instead, when nothing happens, it’s further proof of Ethereum’s immutability.

Rolling back the chain is not, strictly speaking, impossible, but it would require a fundamental existential crisis, just like the Bitcoin inflation bug in 2010 (where BTC actually did roll back). The Bybit hack, while large, does not meet that threshold.

Ethereum has just demonstrated its credible neutrality. The sooner the trolls realize this, the better.


Get the news in your inbox. Explore Blockworks newsletters:

Tags

Decoding crypto and the markets. Daily, with Byron Gilliam.

Upcoming Events

Old Billingsgate

Mon - Wed, October 13 - 15, 2025

Blockworks’ Digital Asset Summit (DAS) will feature conversations between the builders, allocators, and legislators who will shape the trajectory of the digital asset ecosystem in the US and abroad.

Industry City | Brooklyn, NY

TUES - THURS, JUNE 24 - 26, 2025

Permissionless IV serves as the definitive gathering for crypto’s technical founders, developers, and builders to come together and create the future.If you’re ready to shape the future of crypto, Permissionless IV is where it happens.

Brooklyn, NY

SUN - MON, JUN. 22 - 23, 2025

Blockworks and Cracked Labs are teaming up for the third installment of the Permissionless Hackathon, happening June 22–23, 2025 in Brooklyn, NY. This is a 36-hour IRL builder sprint where developers, designers, and creatives ship real projects solving real problems across […]

recent research

Research Report Templates (19).png

Research

Suilend has grown into the top money market and liquid staking provider on Sui. STEAMM, Suilend’s Superfluid AMM, presents a compelling avenue for growing market share within Sui’s DEX landscape and revenue generation for the protocol. Suilend’s multi-product suite position it well for owning market share across key verticals. While current metrics across the Sui ecosystem are likely inflated due to Sui Foundation incentive programs, SEND trades at amongst the lowest multiples in the lend/borrow sector, suggesting that a bull case for continued growth in the ecosystem may be mispriced.

article-image

Silk Road founder Ulbricht made a triumphant return to the Bitcoin Conference, 10 years on from sentencing

article-image

A Blockworks Research report looked at who could take up some of the marketshare in the launchpad space

article-image

Business-to-business stablecoin payments are on the rise, per a report from Artemis, Dragonfly and Castle Island

article-image

Crypto continues to do its thing: incentivizing behavior

article-image

Kraken will soon offer Backed ‘xStocks’ as Solana tokens

article-image

In a unanimous decision, the US Court of International Trade has ruled that Trump’s IEEPA tariffs are unlawful