#黑客利用singularitynet漏洞增发代币
SingularityNET has encountered an incident. This time it’s not just a simple “hacker theft of funds,” but something more complicated: unauthorized minting.
So far, security agencies have detected that the attackers used relevant bridging infrastructure to unauthorizedly mint approximately 260 million AGIX and 53.838 million WMTx on Ethereum, and they hold about $16.77 million worth of related crypto assets.
What’s even more concerning is that on-chain investigations show this incident is not limited to AGIX. Other ASI ecosystem-related assets such as NTX, CGV, and WMTx have also been affected. The attackers carried out the unauthorized minting via signature permissions that were controlled.
Why is “minting” more troublesome than ordinary hacker theft of funds?
Because theft typically involves transferring existing assets from their holders to the hackers. Unauthorized minting, however, is essentially manufacturing new supply directly. Once these tokens enter the market, they create additional selling pressure on existing token holders.
Currently, Fetch.ai has paused the AGIX-to-FET transfer as well as related bridge services, indicating that the project team is first cutting off the risk propagation path.
For short-term trading, the three most important issues for AGIX right now are no longer technical support/resistance pressures, but:
First, whether the project team can completely shut down the attacker’s minting permissions;
Second, how much of the minted AGIX actually makes its way into the trading market;
Third, whether exchanges will freeze the relevant addresses and restrict the flow of anomalous tokens.
Only if it is later confirmed that the vulnerability has been fully fixed—and that the attacker-held minted tokens can no longer flow into the market—will AGIX have a chance to gradually rebuild confidence.
But if the hacker continues transferring or selling the newly created supply, no matter how strong the technical picture is, it will be difficult to withstand the supply shock.
So don’t rush to bottom-fish this time.
Until the security incident is fully confirmed, the biggest risk for AGIX is not how much it will fall, but how much of the market supply you’re actually buying is real and valid.
SingularityNET has encountered an incident. This time it’s not just a simple “hacker theft of funds,” but something more complicated: unauthorized minting.
So far, security agencies have detected that the attackers used relevant bridging infrastructure to unauthorizedly mint approximately 260 million AGIX and 53.838 million WMTx on Ethereum, and they hold about $16.77 million worth of related crypto assets.
What’s even more concerning is that on-chain investigations show this incident is not limited to AGIX. Other ASI ecosystem-related assets such as NTX, CGV, and WMTx have also been affected. The attackers carried out the unauthorized minting via signature permissions that were controlled.
Why is “minting” more troublesome than ordinary hacker theft of funds?
Because theft typically involves transferring existing assets from their holders to the hackers. Unauthorized minting, however, is essentially manufacturing new supply directly. Once these tokens enter the market, they create additional selling pressure on existing token holders.
Currently, Fetch.ai has paused the AGIX-to-FET transfer as well as related bridge services, indicating that the project team is first cutting off the risk propagation path.
For short-term trading, the three most important issues for AGIX right now are no longer technical support/resistance pressures, but:
First, whether the project team can completely shut down the attacker’s minting permissions;
Second, how much of the minted AGIX actually makes its way into the trading market;
Third, whether exchanges will freeze the relevant addresses and restrict the flow of anomalous tokens.
Only if it is later confirmed that the vulnerability has been fully fixed—and that the attacker-held minted tokens can no longer flow into the market—will AGIX have a chance to gradually rebuild confidence.
But if the hacker continues transferring or selling the newly created supply, no matter how strong the technical picture is, it will be difficult to withstand the supply shock.
So don’t rush to bottom-fish this time.
Until the security incident is fully confirmed, the biggest risk for AGIX is not how much it will fall, but how much of the market supply you’re actually buying is real and valid.