AI incident #50 ·

The DAO Hack

What happened

On June 18, 2016, an attacker successfully exploited a vulnerability in The Decentralized Autonomous Organization (The DAO) on the Ethereum blockchain to steal 3.7M Ether valued at $70M.

Only the incident metadata is stored here. The underlying news reports are on the AI Incident Database (CC BY-SA 4.0); use the links above to read them.

News reports (24)

Coverage catalogued by the AI Incident Database. Titles link to the original publisher; the text is not reproduced here.

  1. Thoughts on The DAO Hack
    hackingdistributed.com · Emin Gün Sirer · AIID #901
  2. Analysis of the DAO exploit
    hackingdistributed.com · Phil Daian · AIID #902
  3. The DAO Debacle Shows Immaturity of Smart Contract Technology
    newsbtc.com · Cole Petersen, Nick Chong, Dalmas Ngetich · AIID #884
  4. Smart contracts and the DAO implosion
    multichain.com · Gideon Greenspan · AIID #880
  5. Understanding The DAO Attack
    coindesk.com · David Siegel · AIID #877
  6. Blockchains, Smart Contracts and the Law
    blog.coinbase.com · Reuben Bramanathan · AIID #889
  7. The DAO, The Hack, The Soft Fork and The Hard Fork
    cryptocompare.com · Antonio Madeira · AIID #905
  8. The History of the DAO and Lessons Learned
    blog.slock.it · Christoph Jentzsch · AIID #885
  9. Details Of The DAO Hacking In Ethereum In 2016
    blockchain-council.org · Toshendra Kumar Sharma · AIID #903
  10. The DAO Hack - Stolen $50M & The Hard Fork.
    cryptocurrencyhub.io · Ben Kaufman · AIID #898
  11. The DAO (organization)
    en.wikipedia.org · Wikipedia Editors · AIID #876
  12. Lessons from the DAO incident
    rsk.co · Sergio D. Lerner · AIID #887
  13. Understanding The DAO hack in 10 questions
    blog.bity.com · Rayne Stamboliyska · AIID #897

Who was involved

Alleged deployer
The Dao
Alleged developer
The Dao
Alleged harmed party
Dao Token Holders

Classification (MIT AI Risk Repository taxonomy)

Causal entity
AI
Intent
Unintentional
Timing
Post-deployment
Harm level
none
Sectors
financial and insurance activities
Countries

Risk entries describing this failure mode

Entries from the MIT AI Risk Repository coded to subdomain 7.3.

  • Reliability issues

    "Relying on general-purpose AI products that fail to fulfil their intended function can lead to harm. For example, general- purpose AI systems can make up facts (‘hallucination’), generate erroneous computer code, or pro...

    International AI Safety Report 2025 (Bengio2025)

  • Type 2: Bigger than expected

    Harm can result from AI that was not expected to have a large impact at all, such as a lab leak, a surprisingly addictive open-source product, or an unexpected repurposing of a research prototype.

    TASRA: a Taxonomy and Analysis of Societal-Scale Risks from AI (Critch2023)

  • Type 3: Worse than expected

    AI intended to have a large societal impact can turn out harmful by mistake, such as a popular product that creates problems and partially solves them only for its users.

    TASRA: a Taxonomy and Analysis of Societal-Scale Risks from AI (Critch2023)

  • Ethics and Morality Issues

    LMs need to pay more attention to universally accepted societal values at the level of ethics and morality, including the judgement of right and wrong, and its relationship with social norms and laws.

    Towards Safer Generative Language Models: A Survey on Safety Risks, Evaluations, and Improvements (Deng2023)

  • Safe learning

    "AGIs should avoid making fatal mistakes during the learning phase. Subproblems include safe exploration and distributional shift (DeepMind, OpenAI), and continual learning (Berkeley)."

    AGI Safety Literature Review (Everitt2018 )

  • Malign belief distributions

    "Christiano (2016) argues that the universal distribution M (Hutter, 2005; Solomonoff, 1964a,b, 1978) is malign. The argument is somewhat intricate, and is based on the idea that a hypothesis about the world often includ...

    AGI Safety Literature Review (Everitt2018 )

  • Meta-cognition

    "Agents that reason about their own computational resources and logically uncertain events can encounter strange paradoxes due to Godelian limitations (Fallenstein and Soares, 2015; Soares and Fallenstein, 2014, 2017) an...

    AGI Safety Literature Review (Everitt2018 )

  • Misaligned consequentialist reasoning

    "As we think about even more intelligent and advanced AI assistants, perhaps outperforming humans on many cognitive tasks, the question of how humans can successfully control such an assistant looms large. To achieve the...

    The Ethics of Advanced AI Assistants (Gabriel2024)

Incidents in the same risk subdomain

All incidents in this subdomain