In the ever-evolving landscape of cryptocurrency, few events have stirred the community quite like the recent power play targeting Monero, a privacy-focused, decentralized cryptocurrency designed to be untraceable and anonymous. Over the past month, the network has been at the center of an unprecedented challenge — not from a sudden attack, but from a declared and deliberate campaign against it.
Back in July, Qubic, an AI-focused blockchain protocol, announced its intention to seize majority control of Monero’s hash rate. It openly stated its ambition — to dominate 51% of the mining power behind one of the leading privacy coins, a situation unheard of for a network “valued” at over $5 billion.
It seems now the operation is seemingly complete. Qubic claimed yesterday that it has reached its goal. According to experts, if the claim is genuine, then the implications could ripple far beyond a single network.
The claims of the attack itself have sent shockwaves through the cryptocurrency community, with Monero’s token price dropping by 7.16% from its price following the announcement. The price of the Qubic token, on the other hand, rose by 38.77% during the same time frame.
The Attack: Economic Warfare Rather Than Technical Exploit?
According to a blog post of Qubic, its successful 51% attack on Monero unfolded in two phases. Initially, it faced fierce resistance, including a week-long DDoS attack, but its decentralized network remained operational despite peripheral outages.
The blog post further states that on August 11, 2025, Qubic deployed a sophisticated Selfish Mining strategy, secretly mining and withholding blocks. This tactic, effective with slightly less or more than 51% hashrate, caused orphaned blocks on Monero’s network, signaling Qubic’s dominance. By disproportionately securing block rewards, Qubic gained control over Monero’s consensus.
Expert Skepticism About The Claim and Conflicting Evidence
Security researchers question Qubic’s claims. Experts from AMLBot, a platform providing compliance solutions for crypto businesses, highlight the absence of “large-scale blockchain rewrites” that would indicate a successful attack. James Shuman, from the leading Web3 development company Horizen Labs, noted that while some trackers showed elevated block orphaning, “there’s no independent confirmation of a successful attack or any verified double-spends.”
However, Nikita Zhavoronkov, CEO of blockchain analytics firm Blockchair, confirmed seeing “deep reorgs (up to 6 blocks)” over 24 hours, supporting claims of a successful but low-impact attack.
The debate among experts notwithstanding, economics reveals a paradoxical situation. Ledger CTO Charles Guillemet estimates maintaining a 51% control costs $75 million daily, while Monero’s total daily block rewards equal approximately $150,000. Even if Qubic captured all mining rewards, it would roughly generate $106,000 daily profit, which translates into a massive loss.
This discrepancy suggests Qubic’s true motivation lies in token speculation rather than mining profits. The protocol may have intended to use the attack to generate publicity for its $300 million market cap token while demonstrating dominance over Monero’s network.
Broader Implications for Proof-of-Work Networks
This incident, if true, exposes vulnerabilities in mid-tier proof-of-work cryptocurrencies. While Bitcoin’s massive hashrate makes 51% attacks economically “unfeasible”, smaller networks remain vulnerable.
According to some media reports, Qubic claims this operation to be an “experiment” to help Monero prepare for potential government attacks on privacy coins. The protocol claims it chose not to launch a full takeover to avoid damaging the price of Monero’s token, positioning itself as a benefactor.
However, the Monero community views this as aggressive economic warfare. The psychological impact may prove more damaging than any technical attack, as the mere possibility of 51% control undermines confidence in the network’s security and decentralization.
This unprecedented situation demonstrates that blockchain security depends not just on technical design but on economic incentives and community coordination. As the battle continues and with no clarity about the actual happenings, the incident serves as a wake-up call for other proof-of-work networks to strengthen their defenses against such attacks.
