AiCoin官方

Hacker addresses linked to the Binance attack sold approximately 908,793 PROM in a single transaction on November 1, receiving just 0.0316 ETH, worth about $71.

These tokens could have been worth nearly $5 million at market value, but were dumped into a Uniswap V2 pool with almost no liquidity. Under the rules of constant-product market making, this caused extreme slippage, and the hackers themselves drove the price to nearly zero.

In other words, the protocol settles according to its formula, regardless of whether you’re an attacker. But on-chain transparency meant everyone could watch this “$5 million for $71” trade in real time. It also serves as a reminder to everyday users that market capitalization and actual realizable value are two different things.

What’s worth watching next is whether project teams and large holders will start managing pool liquidity more carefully, treating the risk of extreme slippage as part of smart contract security rather than merely a “market issue.”

Morgan Stanley is maintaining its $5,000-per-ounce gold price target, while offering a somewhat stark comparison: based on the relationship between real yields and gold prices from March to July this year, the theoretical gold price at current interest-rate levels should be below $3,000 per ounce. Yet the current price remains slightly above $4,000, a gap of about 28%.

Morgan Stanley attributes this to structural capital flows providing a floor. Central-bank gold purchases in the second quarter amounted to an annualized rate of about 1,155 tonnes, while global gold ETFs saw net inflows of about $31 billion in the third quarter—a record. This long-term allocation and reserve demand have turned gold from a purely interest-rate-driven trade into an asset driven by “slow-moving variables.”

Meanwhile, Yuxuan Tang of J.P. Morgan Private Bank cautions that liquidity remains tight. The Federal Reserve may continue raising rates in December this year and in the first quarter of next year, and the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield is expected to climb further. In this environment, gold remains vulnerable to a pullback; a truly solid bottom may not form until interest rates peak.

For the market, the key question now is whether central-bank and ETF gold purchases can keep up their pace, and how high Treasury yields and real yields will climb. Which side proves stronger will determine whether gold settles into a high-level trading range or returns to the lower equilibrium implied by interest-rate models.

On October 27, the short-term holder net profit metric swung from +10,400 BTC a week earlier to -18,600 BTC. It had even dipped to -23,100 BTC on October 26, making this a fairly sharp reversal.

The metric measures the net difference between coins in profit and coins at a loss when short-term holders transfer BTC to exchanges. A positive reading means more holders are selling at a profit; a negative reading means more are accepting losses and returning their coins to the market.

It has remained significantly negative for two consecutive days. One data source estimates that only a little over 10% of exchange inflows that day came from profitable positions, with most coming from positions at a loss. This kind of shift is usually interpreted as short-term investors coming under pressure, with sentiment leaning toward capitulation.

What may matter more from here is not this single reading of -18,600 BTC, but whether the metric stays deeply negative over the next few days or quickly returns to a more balanced range. That will determine whether short-term selling pressure is released all at once or stretches into a longer period.

DotSwap’s legacy V1 platform was recently exploited through a server-side signing pathway. About 8.5 BTC was transferred out over roughly four hours, with the announcement estimating the loss at around $685,000. The affected parties were V1 liquidity pools managed through custodial multisig and related accounts.

In other words, the issue did not affect the currently promoted On Nexus product line, but rather the discontinued legacy V1 version. Although the business had completed its transition, the server-side signing mechanism left over from V1 had not been fully decommissioned, creating an entry point for the attack. The losses ultimately fell on LPs who had deposited BTC into V1 pools.

The contrast is striking: many users assumed that “shutting down the old platform means funds have been safely withdrawn.” But as long as assets remain in old multisig pools and the server-side signing pathway is still active, the risk remains. When a Bitcoin-native asset protocol opts for custodial multisig with server-side signing, it needs to truly bring that mechanism to an end during retirement.

What’s worth watching next is how the team handles the remaining V1 assets and its relationship with LPs, and how it restructures the signing and custody processes under the On Nexus roadmap. Otherwise, “residual risks from legacy systems” could become a recurring gray rhino for protocols of this kind.