aggel008 Ξ

Upgraded to ENSv2 and minted my card. I'm a Surge Era holder v2.nft.ens.domains/nft/?toke…

electrum's attacker address matched the recipient's last four characters the oct 24 advisory describes a server hiding an outgoing $BTC transaction and showing a fake one paying the attacker instead. the fake had invalid signatures. manually bumping its fee made the wallet sign it. one user reported losing money this way. so the familiar address suffix wasn't reassurance. it was part of the bait. fixed in 4.8.3. the fix checks signatures on the wallet's own inputs before showing that transaction in local history.

wait. getting your money back still requires showing up the $STANDARD refund pot had 377k tokens unclaimed at 06:00 utc today. this is compensation for bank licenses penalized for inactivity

some of the hacker's withdrawals failed because there wasn't enough money left to steal bitquery's breakdown of the oct 23 initia exploit shows this in noble's USDC reserve: 15:02 utc → $1m paid to the attacker 15:24 → another $80k 15:37 → $63 left, after other users' withdrawals too the blue dots on the chart are failed requests. the reserve couldn't cover them. that's the detail i'd want next to any claim about blocked withdrawals: did a security check stop the transfer, or was the money already gone?

headline: institutional money arrives ledger: franklin's receiving wallet and issuer share the same 8 signers $XRP crowd: how many new investors? ledger: wrong database

everyone wants to sell me an autonomous agent. nobody wants to cover its mistakes axios reports banks blocking third-party agents. easy to call that banks being dinosaurs but try asking the agent company: if it makes a payment i never asked for, do you refund me? not “we have guardrails” not “the model keeps improving” do you refund me? i want agents that can move money. i also want the company selling that capability to have something at risk if the bot gets autonomy and i get all the liability, i'm paying to be the test environment

before calling it traction, subtract the platform's own bot bitquery's september data: pump.fun's mayhem bot made 18% of bonding-curve trades but just 5% of SOL volume. it pays no trading fees i'd rather see how many fee-paying wallets came back

memecoin traders aren't just buying tokens. they're buying each other's filters “it graduated” gets a coin onto someone's watchlist. volume gets it into a scanner. a trending badge gets someone to finally buy make those signals cheap enough to manufacture and traders keep using the same filters, just selecting worse shit that's more interesting than “memecoins are risky” which signal still costs enough to fake that you'd put money behind it?

“done” is the most expensive word in vibe coding $IMD’s release workflow checks the published site against the deployed contracts — addresses, ABIs, onchain code a pretty frontend talking to the wrong contract doesn't count as shipped

my ai agent gave me homework

0xbeans opened a uniswap proposal on sep 15 review, revisions, merged oct 18 URC-5 lets tokens declare where they’re meant to trade built by the team behind $STANDARD

the original plan was an IDM / IMD pair gas costs pushed the dev to robinhood chain. not enough IMD liquidity there, so it launched against ETH instead picked up a little $IDM

wait. "long-term holder" doesn't tell you whether that was the plan

played tennis my whole childhood and youth, ended up in a market where everyone moves the net

selling a token isn't betraying a community. nobody owes you an exit at their own expense

the $STANDARD team refunded the penalty for inactive bankers. 405k tokens are still sitting unclaimed this morning. fell asleep through the punishment AND the refund

called the gambling helpline and got put on hold until funding settled