Across Protocol co-founder Hart Lambur recently revealed that the network is considering a proposal to cap the supply of its ACX token at 1 billion tokens following reports of a vulnerability in its token contract.
In an Oct. 21 post on X, Lambur stated that ACX had been wrongly labeled as having a critical flaw in its ERC-20 token implementation. He acknowledged that the design choice could have been better but emphasized that the vulnerability claims were inaccurate.
To strengthen the ACX token model, Lambur proposed a fixed supply limit of 1 billion tokens. This change would not require any updates to the ACX smart contracts and would involve renouncing Across Governance’s control over the token. This action would prevent any future changes to the token’s supply, whether through minting or burning.
The proposal outlined the benefits of this change:
“This proposal to fix the ACX supply at 1 billion tokens by renouncing contract ownership is designed to secure the economic foundation of the Across ecosystem. We believe this change will benefit all stakeholders by providing stability and promoting growth.”
Across is a cross-chain token bridge secured by UMA’s optimistic oracle. According to the protocol’s website, it has handled over 9 million transactions, totaling more than $12 billion in value.
Vulnerability concerns
Lambur’s proposal surfaced on the same day that rival interoperability platform LayerZero Labs co-founder Bryan Pellegrino raised concerns about the ACX token contract.
Pellegrino pointed out that the network had mistakenly exposed an internal function in its ERC-20 token implementation, which could allow tokens to be withdrawn from any wallet. He warned that this vulnerability could enable “rugging” users, draining accounts to zero.
Pellegrino also claimed that the issue allowed Across Protocol and UMA to mint tokens without limit. He urged the protocol to transfer ownership to a new smart contract that would prevent burning and infinite minting.
Lambur, however, criticized Pellegrino’s claims, dismissing them as “disingenuous fear-mongering.”
