BTC $78,107.24 +0.54%
ETH $2,457.71 +0.90%
BNB $692.11 +0.44%
XRP $1.39 +0.23%
SOL $105.00 +1.54%
TRX $0.3404 +0.59%
DOGE $0.0849 +0.54%
ADA $0.2016 +0.63%
BCH $245.55 +0.39%
LINK $11.38 +0.42%
HYPE $83.36 +2.50%
AAVE $124.82 +2.53%
SUI $0.7407 +0.51%
XLM $0.1796 +1.24%
ZEC $841.01 +4.57%
BTC $78,107.24 +0.54%
ETH $2,457.71 +0.90%
BNB $692.11 +0.44%
XRP $1.39 +0.23%
SOL $105.00 +1.54%
TRX $0.3404 +0.59%
DOGE $0.0849 +0.54%
ADA $0.2016 +0.63%
BCH $245.55 +0.39%
LINK $11.38 +0.42%
HYPE $83.36 +2.50%
AAVE $124.82 +2.53%
SUI $0.7407 +0.51%
XLM $0.1796 +1.24%
ZEC $841.01 +4.57%

tokens

All
Article
Flash

MANTRA announces the review of the attack incident: A down-scaling vulnerability led to the transfer of over 720 million tokens, with approximately 37.96 million tokens frozen

On August 20, MANTRA Chain released a complete review report of the security incident, confirming that the attacker exploited an unsigned integer underflow vulnerability in the balance accounting layer of the upstream dependency cosmos/evm, unauthorizedly transferring a total of 720,923,967.99 MANTRA from two addresses, valued at approximately 3.6 million dollars based on the price before the attack. Among them, the attacker transferred 600,000,035.56 MANTRA from the on-chain burn address and 120,923,932.44 MANTRA from a genesis-era multi-signature address related to an early incentive program.MANTRA stated that this incident did not involve the leakage of validator keys, administrator privileges, governance control, or multi-signature signers; the attacker did not require privileged access and could complete the attack solely through unauthorized contract deployment and self-funded wallets. The first abnormal transfer occurred at 19:06 UTC on August 20, when the attacker transferred approximately 600 million MANTRA from the burn address; subsequently, at 22:59 UTC, another transfer of approximately 120.9 million MANTRA was made. The chain subsequently stopped operating at 23:13 UTC and resumed after upgrading to v8.4.0. The entire network interruption lasted for 30 hours and 13 minutes.This vulnerability was not an issue with MANTRA's self-developed code but originated from the cosmos/evm module, which is responsible for providing EVM functionality on the Cosmos SDK. The vulnerability allowed the attacker to execute unsigned balance deductions without checking if the balance was sufficient, causing an overflow of values and bypassing normal account authorization logic. MANTRA stated that as of today, no funds have been recovered, with approximately 37.96 million MANTRA (accounting for 5.27% of the total transferred) still remaining in the attacker's address, which has been frozen due to the chain's suspension and v8.4.0 restrictions. The remaining funds have flowed to related trading platforms, and the recovery efforts have entered the law enforcement investigation stage. In the future, monitoring of accounts that cannot normally authorize transfers, burn addresses, and other historically "non-transferable" addresses will be strengthened, and efforts will be made to promote improvements in the security vulnerability disclosure process within the Cosmos ecosystem.

first_img Viewpoint: The AI application layer should not be priced based on tokens, but should be anchored to "recognizable work value."

a16z partner Sarah Wang recently published an article pointing out that AI application layer products should not price based on tokens like the model layer, but rather on "recognizable work units." The article argues that token pricing anchors the value of application products to a unit whose cost is continuously declining, making it difficult for customers to predict context length, retrieval volume, or reasoning time, and improperly compares applications to raw computing power.The article suggests a tiered pricing model based on value levels: model layer priced by tokens; application layer priced by recognizable work units for customers (such as account research briefs, code modifications, completed queries), which can be encapsulated through Credits; and scenarios that are attributable and have clear value priced directly by results (such as resolved customer service conversations, qualified leads). The design of Credits should map to different levels of work difficulty to protect gross margins and distinguish "work value" from "delivery cost." The article uses Clay as an example, where its new pricing separates Data Credits (third-party data) from Actions (orchestrated work), only passing on costs for reasoning models with significant cost fluctuations without markup. The author believes that pricing anchored to value rather than computing cost allows customers to understand spending in relation to value, while also benefiting product providers in maintaining profit margins.

Zhao Changpeng: It is difficult to predict the outbreak point of the next cycle, and we do not rule out large AI companies issuing tokens

Zhao Changpeng stated at the "Bitcoin Asia 2026" conference in Hong Kong that both the RWA and AI sectors are currently very strong. Stablecoins, centralized exchanges, decentralized exchanges, and Meme tokens, which have been growing, will continue to grow, and NFTs may return in some form. It is difficult to predict what the next breakout point will be, just as it was impossible to predict the coin issuance craze at the beginning of 2017 and the NFT craze six months before it exploded; these all require entrepreneurs to create.He also mentioned that the funds used by billions of AI agents for automated buying, selling, negotiating, and trading in the future will definitely be cryptocurrencies, likely starting with stablecoins, and then gradually integrating other public chain assets like Bitcoin. He has discussed the possibility of issuing tokens with several top AI companies, as building data centers requires huge amounts of capital, with the cost of 1 GW of computing power being about $30 billion to $50 billion. Some AI companies plan to build hundreds of GW of computing power in the coming years, so they are considering issuing data center tokens that would allow holders to gain rights to use computing power in the future. Additionally, the payment scenarios for AI agents may be implemented later than trading scenarios; currently, AI companies are more focused on helping agents find optimal trading solutions, while trading scenarios require AI to process information quickly, which can increase trading efficiency by about ten times.
app_icon
ChainCatcher Building the Web3 world with innovations.