... but the title is not inside the content. The user gave a separate original title. So we use that title. But careful: The user's original title says "AFX Protocol Loses $24 Million in Bridge Exploit; Arbitrum Native Bridge Unaffected". However, the content inside the article says "AFX Protocol Loses $24 Million in Bridge Hack" as the title? Actually the content provided does not include an

or title tag. It's just the article body. So we need to translate the title as given. Let's translate title: "AFX Protocol Loses $24 Million in Bridge Exploit; Arbitrum Native Bridge Unaffected" -> Norwegian: "AFX Protocol mister 24 millioner dollar i bro-utnyttelse; Arbitrums opprinnelige bro upåvirket". But "bridge exploit" is often translated as "bro-utnyttelse" or "bro-angrep". "Bridge exploit" is a technical term; we can say "bro-utnyttelse" or "bro-sårbarhetsangrep". I think "bro-utnyttelse" is fine. "Native bridge" -> "opprinnelig bro". But note: "Arbitrum Native Bridge" is a proper name? Actually it's a specific bridge, so we keep "Arbitrum Native Bridge" or translate? The requirement says keep proper nouns in original form. "Arbitrum" is a proper noun, but "Native Bridge" is descriptive. However, in the context, "Arbitrum's native bridge" is a specific thing. I think we can keep "Arbitrum Native Bridge" as is, or translate to "Arbitrums opprinnelige bro". The original meta description says "Arbitrum's native bridge" - we can translate that. For title, I'll keep "Arbitrum Native Bridge" as proper noun? But the original title has "Arbitrum Native Bridge Unaffected" - it's a phrase. I'll translate: "AFX Protocol mister 24 millioner dollar i bro-utnyttelse; Arbitrums opprinnelige bro upåvirket". Alternatively, "AFX Protocol taper 24 millioner dollar i bro-eksploit; Arbitrum Native Bridge upåvirket". I think "bro-utnyttelse" is good. Let's go with that. Now content: Translate each paragraph. First paragraph: "A cross-chain bridge used by AFX Protocol was exploited over the weekend, draining roughly $24 million in digital assets. The attack targeted a third-party bridge, not Arbitrum's own infrastructure, according to Offchain Labs, the development firm behind the Arbitrum network." Wait, the original content says "draining roughly $24 million in digital assets." But the title says $24 million. The user's original content says $24 million. So consistent. Translation: "En tverrkjedebro brukt av AFX Protocol ble utnyttet i helgen, og tappet omtrent 24 millioner dollar i digitale eiendeler. Angrepet rettet seg mot en tredjepartsbro, ikke Arbitrums egen infrastruktur, ifølge Offchain Labs, utviklingsselskapet bak Arbitrum-nettverket." Note: "cross-chain bridge" -> "tverrkjedebro" is common. "exploited" -> "utnyttet" (or "angrepet"). "draining" -> "tappet". "digital assets" -> "digitale eiendeler". "third-party" -> "tredjeparts". "development firm" -> "utviklingsselskap". Second paragraph: "Attackers found a vulnerability in the bridge's smart contracts, allowing them to siphon funds from the liquidity pools. AFX Protocol confirmed the loss on social media and said it is working with security firms to trace the stolen assets. The protocol has paused all bridge operations while the investigation continues." Original: "Attackers found a vulnerability in the bridge connecting AFX Protocol to other blockchains. The exploit allowed them to siphon funds from the bridge's liquidity pools." I'll use the original text from the user's content: "Attackers found a vulnerability in the bridge connecting AFX Protocol to other blockchains. The exploit allowed them to siphon funds from the bridge's liquidity pools." So translate: "Angripere fant en sårbarhet i broen som forbinder AFX Protocol med andre blokkjeder. Utnyttelsen tillot dem å tappe midler fra broens likviditetspooler. AFX Protocol bekreftet tapet på sosiale medier og sa at de jobber med sikkerhetsselskaper for å spore de stjålne eiendelene. Protokollen har satt alle brooperasjoner på pause mens etterforskningen pågår." Note: "siphon funds" -> "tappe midler". "liquidity pools" -> "likviditetspooler". "security firms" -> "sikkerhetsselskaper". "trace" -> "spore". Third paragraph: "Offchain Labs quickly clarified that the exploit did not touch Arbitrum's native bridge, which remains secure. The company stated the incident involved a third-party protocol and did not affect Arbitrum's native bridge infrastructure. This distinction matters because Arbitrum is a popular Ethereum layer-2 scaling solution, and any perceived vulnerability could shake user confidence. By drawing a clear line between the compromised third-party bridge and its own system, Offchain Labs aimed to reassure the broader Arbitrum ecosystem." Translation: "Offchain Labs presiserte raskt at utnyttelsen ikke berørte Arbitrums opprinnelige bro, som forblir sikker. Selskapet uttalte at hendelsen involverte en tredjepartsprotokoll og ikke påvirket Arbitrums opprinnelige broinfrastruktur. Denne distinksjonen er viktig fordi Arbitrum er en populær Ethereum-lag-2-skaleringsløsning, og enhver oppfattet sårbarhet kan svekke brukertilliten. Ved å trekke en klar linje mellom den kompromitterte tredjepartsbroen og sitt eget system, forsøkte Offchain Labs å berolige det bredere Arbitrum-økosystemet." Note: "layer-2 scaling solution" -> "lag-2-skaleringsløsning". "shake user confidence" -> "svekke brukertilliten". "drawing a clear line" -> "trekke en klar linje". "reassure" -> "berolige". Fourth paragraph: "The $24 million loss is significant for AFX Protocol, a decentralized finance platform that relies on its bridge for cross-chain transfers. Users who had assets locked in the bridge face potential losses, though the protocol has not yet announced a compensation plan. The exploit highlights ongoing risks in the DeFi space, where bridges remain a frequent target for attackers. According to data from blockchain security firms, bridge hacks have accounted for over $2 billion in losses across the industry in the past two years." Translation: "Tapet på 24 millioner dollar er betydelig for AFX Protocol, en desentralisert finansplattform som er avhengig av broen sin for tverrkjedede overføringer. Brukere som hadde eiendeler låst i broen står overfor potensielle tap, selv om protokollen ennå ikke har annonsert en kompensasjonsplan. Utnyttelsen fremhever pågående risikoer i DeFi-området, der broer fortsatt er et hyppig mål for angripere. Ifølge data fra blokkjedesikkerhetsselskaper har bro-hacks stått for over 2 milliarder dollar i tap på tvers av bransjen de siste to årene." Note: "decentralized finance" -> "desentralisert finans" (DeFi is often kept as DeFi). "cross-chain transfers" -> "tverrkjedede overføringer". "locked" -> "låst". "compensation plan" -> "kompensasjonsplan". "highlights" -> "fremhever". "ongoing