Solana Drafts Plan to Retire Durable Nonces After $270M Drift Exploit
Solana developers have drafted a proposal to end the durable nonces feature no earlier than May 5, 2027, after attackers used it in the April exploit that drained at least $270 million from the Drift protocol. Custodians that sign transactions offline would need to adopt replacement mechanisms.
Written by CoinArticle’s AI Newsroom · from 2 cited sources. How we work
What the Draft Proposes
Solana developers have drafted a proposal to deprecate durable nonces, a transaction feature that lets a signed transaction remain valid indefinitely rather than expiring after roughly 30 seconds. According to CoinDesk, the draft would end the feature no earlier than May 5, 2027. Crypto Briefing reports that the Solana Foundation has laid out a deprecation plan, but says no definitive removal date has been confirmed and that timing depends on upcoming audits and a migration window.
The two reports describe the replacement differently in emphasis. Both point to onchain "programmatic signer" alternatives that would move signature verification and replay protection into the protocol layer, and both say the plan is meant to preserve offline signing rather than eliminate it.
Why Durable Nonces Were Used in the Exploit
A standard Solana transaction carries a recent blockhash, which causes it to expire quickly. Durable nonces replace that short-lived reference with one that does not go stale, which is useful for custodians and exchanges that sign offline or across several parties and cannot always send within the expiry window. That same property allowed attackers to pre-sign transactions and hold them until execution.
The Drift exploit occurred on April 1, 2026. Losses are reported at roughly $270 million by CoinDesk and Crypto Briefing, with Crypto Briefing citing estimates of $270 million to $285 million. Crypto Briefing says the losses represented more than 50% of Drift's total value locked at the time. The sources agree on the core figure of at least $270 million but differ on the upper estimate, so the range should be read as the reported spread rather than a settled number.
Attack Vector and Attribution
According to the research cited by Crypto Briefing, the attackers ran a six-month social engineering campaign targeting two members of Drift's Security Council. They then executed pre-signed transactions that transferred admin control and drained reserves within minutes. The exploit was a human-process failure rather than a smart contract bug, a framing Drift itself has adopted.
Crypto Briefing reports that the research links the attackers to a group tracked as UNC4736, also associated with the Lazarus group and with North Korean state-affiliated actors. It describes this as a likely link rather than a confirmed one. CoinDesk's report does not address attribution.
Trade-offs and Open Questions
The replacement mechanisms carry their own risks. Crypto Briefing notes one concern that the alternatives could leave transfer authorizations valid even after a transaction fails. Affected users, including custodians, exchanges and institutions, would have to rebuild signing workflows during the migration window, the length of which has not been confirmed.
Drift has resumed operations under the name Velocity and introduced a token, DFX, to support affected users, according to Crypto Briefing.
Why It Matters
For Traders
Exposure to Solana custody and signing infrastructure may shift as custodians prepare for the migration, though no removal date is confirmed yet.
For Investors
The episode underscores that operational security and signer management can be a larger source of protocol risk than smart contract code.
For Builders
Teams relying on durable nonces for offline or multi-party signing should begin evaluating programmatic signer alternatives and their replay-protection tradeoffs.
This article is for information only and is not financial advice. Read the full disclaimer.
