This article provides an in-depth analysis of recent "Rune loss" incidents during BEVM cross-chain operations, along with actionable safety recommendations to prevent recurrence.
TL;DR
Recent incidents of "Rune disappearance" during BEVM cross-chain transactions have raised community concerns. Our investigation confirms these losses occur when incompatible wallets treat Rune-containing UTXOs as regular transactions. Below we explain the technical mechanisms behind these events and provide essential safety guidelines for users engaging with Bitcoin inscriptions and Runes.
Background
On December 23, 2023, BEVM users reported unexpected transfers of COOK and PSBTS Runes to cross-chain bridges. BEVM clarified that unsupported Runes were transferred as standard UTXOs due to wallet limitations (e.g., UniSat's lack of Rune protocol support). ScaleBit's audit verified these were protocol compatibility issues rather than malicious actions.
BEVM is a BTC-powered EVM-compatible Layer 2 solution aiming to expand Bitcoin's smart contract capabilities. During its Odyssey campaign, users transferring BTC to BEVM encountered Rune losses traced to the bridge address: bc1p43kqxnf7yxcz5gacmqu98cr2r5gndtauzrwpypdzmsgp7n3lssgs5wruvy
Key Observations:
- The bridge address holds 110,000+ COOK and 280,000+ PSBTS Runes
- Transactions show Rune-containing UTXOs (0.00000546 BTC) being processed as regular inputs
- Standard Rune transfers preserve the special UTXO structure, while cross-chain operations merge them
Core Concepts Explained
UTXO Mechanics
- Definition: Unspent Transaction Outputs (UTXOs) are indivisible transaction components resembling physical coins
Transaction Flow:
- Inputs collect sufficient UTXOs (e.g., 0.9 BTC + 0.2 BTC for a 1 BTC transfer)
- Outputs include the payment (1 BTC to recipient) and change (0.1 BTC back to sender)
Inscriptions vs. Runes
| Feature | Inscriptions (e.g., BRC-20) | Runes (e.g., COOK/PSBTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Protocol | Ordinals | Runes |
| Storage | SegWit data | OP_RETURN |
| UTXO Value | 0.00000546 BTC (minimum) | Same |
👉 Why Bitcoin's UTXO model matters for asset security
Why Runes Get "Lost"
- Wallet Limitations: UniSat and similar wallets don't recognize Rune protocol UTXOs
- Input Aggregation: During transfers, unsupported UTXOs get merged as regular bitcoin
- Protocol Constraints: BEVM's decentralized design prevents manual recovery of misclassified assets
Real-World Cases:
- December 2023: 15,000 COOK lost during Unisat BRC-20 swaps
- Rune Alpha's minting process sometimes consumes inscriptions as gas
Prevention Strategies
For Users:
✅ Use Rune-compatible wallets (e.g., Xverse)
✅ Verify protocol support before cross-chain transfers
✅ Monitor community feedback on new platforms
✅ Separate assets across multiple wallets
For Developers:
⚠️ Implement protocol compatibility checks
⚠️ Provide clear warnings about unsupported assets
⚠️ Design fail-safes for unusual UTXOs
FAQs
Q: Can lost Runes be recovered?
A: Currently no - BEVM's decentralized architecture prevents targeted asset retrieval without consensus changes.
Q: Why don't inscriptions get lost similarly?
A: UniSat actively recognizes inscription UTXOs during transfers, while Runes remain unsupported.
Q: How to check if a wallet supports Runes?
A: Consult wallet documentation and test with small-value Runes first.
👉 Essential tools for Bitcoin asset management
Conclusion
While Bitcoin inscriptions and Runes represent groundbreaking innovations, their nascent ecosystem carries risks. Users must:
- Stay informed about protocol developments
- Verify tool compatibility
- Practice cautious asset management
As Web3 security leaders, ScaleBit has safeguarded $8B+ in assets through 200+ audits. Make Security Accessible for All - contact us for comprehensive blockchain security solutions.
References
[1] BEVM Whitepaper
[2] FX168 News Report
[3] Medium: Inscriptions vs. Runes Comparison