- The $1.46 billion Bybit hack reignited calls for an Ethereum rollback, but developers ruled it out.
- Unlike 2010’s Bitcoin bug or Ethereum’s 2016 DAO hack, today’s ecosystem complexity makes rollbacks infeasible.
- Ethereum’s commitment to immutability reinforces its credibility, shifting focus to stronger security measures instead.
The immutability of blockchain has long been its strongest selling point — once data is recorded, it cannot be altered. Yet when catastrophic events like multi-billion-dollar hacks strike, the temptation to “roll back” the chain resurfaces. The $1.46 billion Bybit hack of February 2025, allegedly linked to North Korea’s Lazarus Group, reignited this debate. Calls from industry figures such as Samson Mow and Arthur Hayes to roll back Ethereum’s chain highlight both the desperation of the moment and the deep tensions in crypto between resilience and immutability.
But can Ethereum truly roll back transactions in 2025? And if it could, should it? This article explores the mechanics, history, and risks of blockchain rollbacks, using the Bybit hack as a case study to understand why reversing Ethereum’s history may no longer be feasible — or desirable.
What Is a Blockchain Rollback?
A blockchain rollback refers to reversing part of a chain’s history to nullify certain transactions. Rollbacks can occur for different reasons:
- Hacks or thefts threatening the ecosystem.
- Critical protocol bugs undermining network integrity.
- Centralization risks or consensus errors requiring fixes.
Technically, rollbacks are executed through forks or patches:
| Method | Definition | Compatibility | Risks |
|---|---|---|---|
| Soft fork | Backward-compatible change; old and new versions coexist. | Old chain still valid. | May not reverse all transactions. |
| Hard fork | Creates two incompatible versions of the blockchain. | Requires widespread consensus. | Splits community, creates permanent division. |
| Patch rollback | Manually resets the chain to a previous state. | Custom intervention. | Highly disruptive; undermines trust. |
While these methods are theoretically possible, their feasibility shrinks as networks grow larger and more interconnected.
The Bybit Hack: A Case Study in Blockchain Vulnerability
On February 21, 2025, Bybit suffered one of the largest hacks in crypto history, losing $1.46 billion in digital assets.
How the Hack Unfolded
Hackers exploited Bybit’s multisignature system by tricking executives into using a fake interface. Through “blind signature” tactics, attackers replaced the legitimate multisig contract with a malicious one. This granted them full control over the wallet, enabling them to drain approximately 401,000 ETH.
The stolen funds were swiftly laundered:
- stETH and cmETH were swapped for ETH.
- Large amounts of ETH were converted into Bitcoin on decentralized exchanges.
Security analysts linked the breach to the Lazarus Group, known for targeting crypto exchanges to finance North Korea’s weapons programs.
Bybit’s Response
Bybit launched a recovery bounty program, offering up to 10% of returned funds. Meanwhile, CEO Ben Zhou cautiously suggested that any rollback decision should be community-driven, not centralized.
Why Rolling Back Ethereum Is Not Feasible
Ethereum developers quickly dismissed the idea of a rollback in response to the Bybit hack. Their reasoning highlights the technical, ethical, and systemic challenges involved.
1. Immutable Design
Immutability is Ethereum’s defining feature. Unlike Web2 systems, where centralized operators can reverse errors, Ethereum ensures finality of transactions. Altering this principle risks eroding user confidence.
As one Ethereum researcher put it: “Once we allow a rollback, we introduce subjectivity into the system — who decides what is reversible and what isn’t?”
2. Trust and Ecosystem Stability
Ethereum underpins DeFi, NFTs, cross-chain bridges, and enterprise systems. A rollback would ripple across thousands of applications, undoing trades, collateralized loans, and token transfers. The fallout would undermine Ethereum’s role as a neutral settlement layer.
3. Technical Infeasibility
Unlike the 2016 DAO hack, when funds were frozen for a month, Bybit’s stolen assets were moved almost instantly. In today’s DeFi-driven environment, assets can be swapped across chains in minutes, leaving no realistic window for intervention.
Additionally, Ethereum now processes millions of daily transactions with significant off-chain effects (exchange trades, lending contracts). Rolling these back would create chaos.
Historical Precedents: Rollbacks in Blockchain
Examining past rollbacks sheds light on why Ethereum is more resistant today.
Bitcoin’s 2010 Overflow Bug
- A coding flaw minted 184 billion BTC in block 74638.
- Satoshi Nakamoto released a patch, rolling back the chain to block 74637.
- At the time, Bitcoin had a tiny user base and low difficulty, making the rollback feasible.
Ethereum’s DAO Hack in 2016
- The DAO controlled 15% of ETH supply before being exploited.
- Developers performed an “extraordinary state change” to restore funds.
- The decision split the community, creating Ethereum (ETH) and Ethereum Classic (ETC).
| Event | Year | Cause | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bitcoin Overflow Bug | 2010 | Protocol error | Rollback successful |
| Ethereum DAO Hack | 2016 | Application vulnerability | Hard fork → ETH & ETC |
| Bybit Hack | 2025 | Compromised multisig interface | No rollback (immutability upheld) |
The Bybit Hack vs. The DAO Hack
While some compare the Bybit hack to Ethereum’s 2016 crisis, the situations differ dramatically:
- Layer of attack: DAO was an app vulnerability; Bybit was an interface compromise.
- Fund mobility: DAO funds were frozen; Bybit’s were instantly laundered.
- Ecosystem maturity: Ethereum was young in 2016; by 2025 it supports a global DeFi economy.
In short, what was possible in 2016 is no longer viable in 2025.
Expert Opinions: The Debate Around Rollbacks
The Bybit hack sparked heated commentary:
- Samson Mow (Jan3 CEO): Advocated for a rollback to prevent North Korea from financing weapons with stolen ETH.
- Arthur Hayes (BitMEX co-founder): Tagged Vitalik Buterin, urging him to support a rollback.
- Ben Zhou (Bybit CEO): Remained neutral, calling for community-driven decision-making.
However, Ethereum’s culture has shifted. Developers and community leaders now prioritize immutability, even under extreme pressure.
As analyst Justin Bons noted:
“The Ethereum community has matured. Non-standard state changes are rejected even in dire cases. The protocol’s credibility depends on its immutability.”
Security Lessons from the Bybit Hack
The hack underscores the evolution of attack strategies. Lazarus Group leveraged delegatecall, a low-level Ethereum function designed for upgrades, to hijack multisig contracts.
Also Read: Bybit Hack: Cybercriminal Still Holds 399,000 ETH Despite Exchange’s Recovery Efforts
Mitigation Strategies Going Forward
- Timelocks on wallets to delay configuration changes.
- Stronger signing environments to prevent malware-infected devices from approving transactions.
- Improved multisig designs to resist blind signature attacks.
This incident highlights that Ethereum’s attack surface lies less in its protocol and more in the applications and interfaces built atop it.
Why Rollbacks Are No Longer an Option
The Bybit hack reignited debates about blockchain rollbacks, but Ethereum’s response was clear: immutability must prevail. Unlike in 2010 or 2016, Ethereum’s vast and interconnected ecosystem makes reversals infeasible without catastrophic consequences.
Instead of revisiting rollback debates, the industry must focus on preventative security measures, robust wallet infrastructure, and better user protections. Ethereum’s stance sets a precedent: in the world of decentralized finance, trust is built not on undoing mistakes but on preventing them in the first place.