On July 9, 2025, GMX v1 lost around ~$42 million to an attack that exploited how the protocol calculated its total value (Assets Under Management or AUM). This was GMX’s second hack of 2025, following a $13 million loss in March. The attacker used a reentrancy vulnerability to manipulate pricing data, artificially inflating the protocol’s apparent value, then immediately withdrew tokens at the inflated price.

​
Core Vulnerability Mechanism

The attack exploited a design flaw where short position operations immediately updated globalShortAveragePrices, which directly impacted AUM calculations used for GLP token minting and redemption. The attacker used reentrancy to establish massive short positions within a single transaction, artificially inflating GLP prices. The critical vulnerability chain:
  1. Reentrancy entry point: executeDecreaseOrder accepted a contract address instead of EOA
  2. State manipulation: Opening short positions immediately updated global averages
  3. AUM inflation: System counted unrealized short losses as vault “assets”
  4. Value extraction: Inflated AUM allowed redemption of GLP for excessive assets

​
How AUM Calculation Was Exploited

​
Normal AUM Calculation

GMX calculates its total value using this formula: 
AUM = Physical Tokens + Stablecoins + Unrealized Trading Profits + Fees
The “unrealized trading profits” component was the vulnerability. When traders open short positions (betting prices will fall), the protocol tracks:
  • Average price at which all shorts were opened
  • Current market price of the asset
  • Difference = profit/loss for the protocol
AUM Calculation

​
Key Insight: Short Position Impact

The critical part is how short positions affect AUM:
  • When shorts lose money (current price > average price): Vault profits, AUM increases
  • When shorts make money (current price < average price): Vault loses, AUM decreases

​
The Manipulation

  1. Attacker deposited tokens to mint GLP (liquidity provider tokens)
  2. Exploited reentrancy to gain control during a transaction
  3. Opened massive short positions at artificially low average prices
  4. AUM spiked significantly because the system thought it had huge unrealized profits from shorts
  5. Redeemed GLP tokens at the inflated price, withdrawing $40M+ in real assets

​
Critical Invariants That Could Have Prevented the Attack

Multiple invariants could have detected this attack, but AUM manipulation bounds is probably the most obvious and versatile detection method, because it defines a behavior that should never happen. Here are some invariants that could have prevented the attack:

​
1. AUM Manipulation Bounds Invariant

Implement a simple check that AUM changes must be reasonable. This invariant ensures that any change in the protocol’s total value is bounded by actual token flows and reasonable market movements.

​
2. Atomic State Consistency Invariant

Ensure all state changes affecting token pricing complete atomically before any external calls. This prevents reentrancy-based manipulation of global price averages.

​
3. Price Update Monotonicity Invariant

Ensure global average prices update based on actual position changes, not synthetic operations. This maintains mathematical consistency in price calculations.

​
4. Caller Type Restriction Invariant

Critical financial operations must originate from externally owned accounts (EOAs) or pre-approved contracts. This prevents malicious contracts from exploiting reentrancy vulnerabilities.

​
5. Position-to-Pool Ratio Invariant

Individual positions must not exceed a maximum percentage of total pool value. This limits the impact any single position can have on global averages.

​
AUM Manipulation Bounds Assertion Example

A Credible Layer assertion similar to the one below could have prevented an attack like this. We have simplified the assertion for brevity, but a real world assertion would check for each call in the call stack that the invariant holds. In the example we just show the logic that would be checked for one call. Being able to inspect the call stack is a powerful feature of the Credible Layer and it allows for detection of attacks that are carried out in a single transaction. 
function assertSimplifiedAUMBounds() external {
    // Core principle: AUM should closely track actual token flows

    // 1. Capture AUM before transaction
    ph.forkPreState();
    uint256 aumBefore = getAumInUsdg(true);

    // 2. Capture AUM after transaction
    ph.forkPostState();
    uint256 aumAfter = getAumInUsdg(true);

    // 3. Calculate AUM change
    uint256 aumChange = aumAfter > aumBefore ? aumAfter - aumBefore : aumBefore - aumAfter;

    // 4. Calculate percentage change
    uint256 percentageChange = aumBefore > 0 ? (aumChange * 10000) / aumBefore : 0;

    // 5. Core invariant: AUM should not change by more than 5% in a single transaction
    require(
        percentageChange <= MAX_AUM_DEVIATION_BPS,
        "SIMPLE_AUM_BOUNDS_VIOLATION: AUM changed by more than 5% in a single transaction"
    );

    // 6. Additional check: If AUM increased significantly, verify it's not artificial
    if (aumAfter > aumBefore) {
        uint256 aumIncrease = aumAfter - aumBefore;

        // If AUM increased by more than $10M, revert
        require(
            aumIncrease <= MAX_ABSOLUTE_AUM_DEVIATION,
            "LARGE_AUM_INCREASE: AUM increased by more than $10M in a single transaction"
        );
    }
}

​
How This Assertion Catches the Exploit

This assertion implements a simple but powerful economic sanity check that would have prevented the GMX attack: What it does:
  1. Captures AUM before and after the transaction using Phylax’s state forking
  2. Calculates the percentage change in AUM during the transaction
  3. Enforces a 5% maximum deviation - any AUM change larger than 5% triggers a revert (example value, could be higher or lower depending on the protocol)
  4. Adds an absolute cap of $10M for any single AUM increase (example value, could be higher or lower depending on the protocol)
Why it catches the exploit: The GMX attacker artificially inflated AUM by a massive amount with only a small real deposit. This created an enormous percentage deviation that would immediately trigger the assertion:
  • Percentage check: The artificial AUM increase represented a huge percentage change, far exceeding the 5% limit
  • Absolute check: The artificial increase also exceeded the $10M absolute cap
  • Economic logic: Real market movements rarely cause such extreme AUM swings in a single transaction
Key insight: This assertion doesn’t need to understand the technical details of the reentrancy attack. It simply enforces the economic principle that “protocol value should match actual assets at any point in the call stack” - a rule that the attack fundamentally violated.

​
Key Takeaway

The GMX attack succeeded because the protocol trusted its internal accounting without validating that value changes matched actual asset movements. A simple economic sanity check - “did our total value increase by more than our deposits?” - would have prevented this $42M loss. Multiple invariants could have detected this attack, but AUM manipulation bounds was the most obvious and effective detection method. The key insight is that financial protocols must maintain strict mathematical properties throughout all state transitions, with no intermediate states that violate these properties. By defining invariants and protecting against transactions that violate them with something like the Credible Layer assertions, protocols can prevent a wide range of attacks while maintaining intended functionality. This principle applies to any DeFi protocol: if your system’s reported value doesn’t match your actual holdings, something is wrong.