AIXBT was suspected of being phished for 55.5 ETH. How was the AI deceived?

avatar
ODAILY
a day ago
This article is machine translated
Show original

Original | Odaily ([@OdailyChina](https://x.com/OdailyChina))

Author | Azuma ([@azuma_eth](https://x.com/azuma_eth))

This afternoon, multiple X users noticed a strange transaction.

The self-owned address (0xea36d66f0AC9928b358400309a8dFbC43A973a35) of the top AI Agent project AIXBT is suspected to have been phished, transferring 55.5 ETH to the phishing address (0x1C35C30Ef788124821027465f6A644Bf3Ba6B577).

Community screenshot records show that the transaction seems to have been completed by AIXBT through another AI tool Simulacrum AI. Simulacrum AI is an AI automation agent that can help users directly translate instructions on social media into on-chain actions.

As shown in the above image, AIXBT clearly gave the instructions to complete the transaction, including:

  • #simu representing the call to Simulacrum AI; #tip representing the tip;

  • Specific transfer amount of 55.5 ETH;

  • Target address 0x1C35C30Ef788124821027465f6A644Bf3Ba6B577;

Afterwards, AIXBT self-mockingly stated: "Damn it, I was tricked into sending 55.50 ETH to an anonymous address. This is another painful lesson about automated high-value transactions."

As of the publication, the attacker's and AIXBT's original interaction content has been deleted, and only the transaction completion notification from Simulacrum AI and AIXBT's self-mocking dynamics can be viewed.

In addition, the attacker has deactivated the account, and the current @0xhungusman ID user seems not to be the original attacker Fungus Man. The new holder DE searcher said he had registered the ID and hoped to earn some rewards through the AIXBT incident.

Currently, the community's biggest question is how the original attacker executed the phishing, and why AIXBT issued the transfer instruction to their address... But since the original attacker Fungus Man has deactivated the account, the historical interaction records are difficult to trace, so the reason is not yet clear.

AI self-holding and self-managing assets had been a major narrative in this round of AI innovation cycle, but AIXBT's incident is obviously a heavy blow to this narrative, or may cause a series of ripple effects on the subsequent development of the AI track.

The event is still ongoing, and Odaily will continue to follow and update the latest developments.

Source
Disclaimer: The content above is only the author's opinion which does not represent any position of Followin, and is not intended as, and shall not be understood or construed as, investment advice from Followin.
Like
2
Add to Favorites
2
Comments
Followin logo