. We need to translate all text inside.
Let's translate paragraph by paragraph.
First paragraph: "THORChain lost about $10 million last month to an attacker who exploited a vulnerability in its threshold signature scheme (TSS) implementation. The exploit, detailed in a July 3 report, targeted the GG20-based TSS protocol by deliberately failing signing rounds 864 times over roughly two and a half days, gradually leaking key material from other validators. The incident underscores a growing tension in crypto security: the efficiency gains of TSS versus the on-chain auditability of traditional multisig."
Translation: "上个月，THORChain因攻击者利用其阈值签名方案（TSS）实现中的漏洞而损失约1000万美元。7月3日的一份报告详细描述了这次攻击，它针对基于GG20的TSS协议，故意在约两天半的时间内失败签署轮次864次，逐渐泄露其他验证者的关键材料。这一事件凸显了加密安全中日益增长的矛盾：TSS的效率提升与传统的多重签名（multisig）的链上可审计性之间的权衡。"
We need to keep "multisig" as "多重签名" or "多签". I'll use "多重签名" for clarity.
Second paragraph: "How the attack worked" -> "攻击是如何运作的" or "攻击方式". I'll use "攻击方式" for h2.
Then: "The attacker didn't break the cryptography in one shot. Instead, they abused the protocol's round structure — repeatedly failing signing rounds to extract partial key information. Over 864 attempts, the cumulative leakage gave them enough to reconstruct the full key. The exploit took about 60 hours, suggesting a patient, methodical approach rather than a brute-force smash-and-grab. THORChain's post-mortem didn't specify whether the vulnerability has been fully patched, but the exchange has since paused and resumed operations."
Translation: "攻击者并非一次性破解密码学。相反，他们滥用了协议的轮次结构——反复使签署轮次失败，以提取部分密钥信息。经过864次尝试，累积的泄漏足以让他们重建完整密钥。这次攻击耗时约60小时，表明这是一种耐心、有条不紊的方式，而非暴力破解的抢掠。THORChain的事后分析并未说明该漏洞是否已完全修补，但该交易所此后已暂停并恢复运营。"
Third paragraph: "TSS vs. multisig trade-offs" -> "TSS与多重签名的权衡" or "TSS与多签的取舍". I'll use "TSS与多重签名的权衡".
Then: "The THORChain incident highlights a known weakness in TSS: protocol-level round abuse and denial-of-service risks. Multisig, by contrast, is provable on-chain — every signature is visible, and quorum enforcement happens in the script. But multisig comes with its own costs. A 2-of-3 P2SH setup eats about 296 vBytes per input; a 3-of-5 P2WSH runs ~350 vB. With Taproot and Schnorr, schemes like FROST or MuSig2 can shrink that to ~57.5 vB, cutting fees roughly 80% in higher-threshold setups. That's a big deal for high-throughput chains. But the trade-off is that TSS looks like a single signature on-chain, making it harder for auditors to verify policy without strong off-chain logs and attestations."
Translation: "THORChain事件凸显了TSS的一个已知弱点：协议层面的轮次滥用和拒绝服务风险。相比之下，多重签名在链上是可证明的——每个签名都可见，法定人数执行发生在脚本中。但多重签名也有其自身的成本。2-of-3的P2SH设置每个输入大约消耗296 vBytes；3-of-5的P2WSH大约350 vB。使用Taproot和Schnorr，像FROST或MuSig2这样的方案可以将其缩减到约57.5 vB，在更高阈值的设置中可削减约80%的费用。这对高吞吐量链来说意义重大。但权衡之处在于，TSS在链上看起来像一个单一签名，这使得审计员在没有强大的链下日志和证明的情况下更难验证策略。"
Fourth paragraph: "Wallet compromise was the costliest vector in the first half of 2026, according to CertiK's H1 review. The firm counted $1.3 billion lost across 344 incidents, with wallet-related attacks accounting for $444.5 million across just 33 cases. That's about a third of all losses from less than 10% of incidents. The THORChain exploit fits that pattern — a wallet-level vulnerability, not a smart contract bug or a bridge hack. For teams choosing between TSS and multisig, the decision often comes down to fee sensitivity versus auditability. TSS suits low-fee, high-throughput flows where the wallet acts as an externally owned account (EOA). Multisig suits conservative ops where on-chain policy visibility and simple recovery matter more than saving a few dollars per transaction."
Translation: "根据CertiK的H1审查，钱包入侵是2026年上半年成本最高的攻击途径。该公司统计了344起事件中损失13亿美元，其中与钱包相关的攻击仅33起，就造成了4.445亿美元的损失。这约占所有损失的三分之一，而事件数量不到10%。THORChain攻击符合这一模式——这是一个钱包级别的漏洞，而非智能合约错误或桥接攻击。对于在TSS和多重签名之间选择的团队，决策通常归结为费用敏感性与可审计性。TSS适用于低费用、高吞吐量的流程，其中钱包充当外部拥有账户（EOA）。多重签名适用于保守的操作，其中链上策略可见性和简单恢复比每笔交易节省几美元更重要。"
Fifth paragraph: "On Ethereum, TSS can appear as a single EOA, avoiding contract execution overhead — but that also means giving up contract-level guardrails and visibility for treasuries. Privacy is cleaner with TSS because everything looks like a single key; with multisig, unless using Taproot carefully, some policy aspects can leak when spending. The THORChain case shows that the protocol-level attack surface of TSS is real, and not just theoretical. Whether the industry responds with better round-abuse protections or a shift back toward on-chain multisig for high-value wallets remains an open question."
Translation: "在以太坊上，TSS可以表现为一个单一的EOA，避免了合约执行开销——但这同时也意味着放弃了合约级别的护栏和资金库的可见性。使用TSS时隐私更干净，因为一切看起来都像一个单一密钥；而使用多重签名，除非谨慎使用Taproot，否则在支出时某些策略方面可能会泄露。THORChain案例表明，TSS的协议级攻击面是真实存在的，而不仅仅是理论上的。行业是否会通过更好的轮次滥用保护或转向高价值钱包的链上多重签名来应对，仍然是一个悬而未决的问题。"
Now we have all content. We need to preserve HTML structure. So we will output the article with translated text inside the same tags.
Meta description: "THORChain lost $10M in a TSS exploit that leaked key material over 864 failed signing rounds. The incident highlights trade-offs between threshold signatures and multisig."
Translation: "THORChain在一次TSS攻击中损失了1000万美元，该攻击通过864次失败的签署轮次泄露了关键材料。这一事件凸显了阈值签名和多重签名之间的权衡。"
Now we need to output JSON with title, content (full HTML), and meta description.
We must ensure the JSON is valid. We'll escape double quotes if needed, but we'll use double quotes for JSON strings, so we need to escape any double quotes inside. Our text doesn't have double quotes, so it's fine.
Let's assemble.
Title: "THORChain TSS漏洞利用盗取1000万美元，引发对阈值签名安全性的质疑"
Content: We'll put the entire with translated paragraphs. We'll keep the h2 tags
