Vitalik Buterin posted on X platform to refute the view that "AI hacking will end cybersecurity," clearly stating his disagreement with this judgment and asserting that cybersecurity is essentially a mechanism favorable to the defenders.

He specifically mentioned the binding of interests to his own position: including himself, anyone currently holding cryptocurrency is implicitly betting on the judgment of "defenders being favored," and since about 90% of his net worth is held in cryptocurrency, this bet carries significant weight for him, directly relating to the safety boundary of his personal wealth.

Vitalik pointed out the specific direction of AI technology: AI can transform "program security" into verifiable mathematical theorems, meaning security no longer relies on manual audits or empirical judgments, but can achieve deterministic conclusions through formal proofs, which fundamentally differs from the traditional passive defense logic of "patching and plugging vulnerabilities."

However, he also delineated the boundaries of this method: the definition of security must cover multiple risk factors including key management, servers, end devices, operating systems, databases, network layers, and cache layers; merely verifying the code logic itself is insufficient, and true security requires establishing equally strong protections for every link in the entire chain.

For security-critical components, Vitalik proposed the solution of "holistic verification"—that is, no longer conducting local reviews of single modules or functions, but performing end-to-end formal verification of the entire program, which means that the granularity and workload of verification will significantly increase.

Vitalik stated that Ethereum's technological roadmap for the coming years will advance in this direction, emphasizing that while blockchain must achieve both "scalability" and "privacy," software security must be a fundamental prerequisite; otherwise, scaling and privacy themselves will amplify the attack surface.

From a market mechanism perspective, such statements are more narrative signals rather than direct capital movements: they target users who firmly hold ETH and Ethereum ecosystem assets long-term, essentially providing counter-narrative support against the potential sell-off sentiment triggered by the "AI threat theory"; if there were previously funds that hesitated or reduced their holdings in Ethereum assets due to AI security panic, such statements may alleviate some selling pressure, while funds hedging against AI risk narratives may come under pressure.

Source: Public Information