Following the recent Bybit security breach, a debate has emerged regarding responsibility allocation. BlockBeats reported on February 27th that Safe investor Hasu commented on social media regarding the incident. He argued that while the breach stemmed from Safe’s front-end platform rather than Bybit’s infrastructure, Bybit’s systems failed to adequately detect such a straightforward attack. Hasu stressed that when transferring funds exceeding $1 billion, there is no justification for neglecting message integrity checks on a second offline machine. He emphasized that holding Safe solely accountable would be an inaccurate reflection of the broader lessons to be learned from this event. Wintermute founder wishfulcynic.eth countered Hasu’s claims, suggesting his remarks were misleading and distorted the facts. Hasu further defended his position by stating that evaluating Safe’s role in the incident is challenging, not due to his investment in the platform but rather because of its centralized front-end nature. He emphasized the importance of collaborative efforts with large fund clients for enhanced security awareness training. Hasu also acknowledged the breach of Safe developers’ devices as a significant concern, yet he highlighted the vital need to learn from the incident’s impact.