<div><style>
    .source {
      font-size: 0;
    }
    .source a {
      display: inline-block;
      vertical-align: bottom;
    }
    .source img {
      pointer-events: none;
      border-radius: 50%;
      vertical-align: bottom;
      padding: 2px;
      display: inline;
      margin: 0;
    }
  </style>
<h3>Fireline Report</h3>
<p>RVV is a new currency in the AI+gaming sector. The project owner is suspected of maliciously transferring out 860 million RVVs and cashing out more than $9 million. The market value plummeted at one point and then rebounded to $12.5 million in a short period of time. There was a significant inflow of on-chain funds into CEX.</p>
<h3>Trading Guide</h3>
<p>Driven by events, short-term fluctuations are severe. The repurchase news failed to stop the decline. The key position is 0.12. The failure condition is that the official announcement is not fulfilled or there is another abnormal sell-off.</p>
<p style="margin-top: 20px; text-align: left; opacity: 0.4; padding: 0 42px"><small>Updated at 10-20 10:02</small><br><small>AI-generated summary, not investment advice</small></p></div>

<h1>In-depth analysis of the RVV plunge: Who is reaping the benefits?</h1><h2> TL;DR</h2><p> After RVV was listed on Binance Alpha and Gate.io on October 18, 2025, it experienced a massive sell-off in a short period of time. Approximately <strong>890M RVV (8.6% of the total supply) was sold, cashing out 10.66 million USDT</strong> . The price plummeted from a high of $0.0399 to $0.007318, <strong>a drop of over 80%</strong> . The project claimed that the third-party market maker account was hacked, but on-chain evidence and community analysis strongly point to <strong>a coordinated sell-off</strong> , with the project team or related parties likely the primary recipients.</p><h2> Core Analysis</h2><h3> On-chain evidence: Clear insider selling pattern</h3><p> <strong>Sell-off Path Tracing</strong> :</p><ul><li> <strong>Starting point</strong> : Minting contract <code>0xd3Ca4832452d64dfF8acEf7a2f2B4922af09dA94</code></li><li> <strong>Distribution layer</strong> : transferred to 8 multi-signature addresses, and then abnormally distributed to 18+ new wallets</li><li> <strong>Cash out</strong> : Sold through DEX aggregators such as 1inch and Zerion, obtaining <strong>10.268 million to 10.66 million USDT</strong></li><li> <strong>Funds flow</strong> : 82% (8.26 million USDT) were quickly transferred to Gate.io and KuCoin hot wallets</li></ul><p> <strong>Timeline</strong> :</p><table><thead><tr><th> Time (UTC)</th><th> event</th><th> Price impact</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td> 2025-10-18 13:00</td><td> Binance Alpha launches</td><td> $0.0209 → $0.0266</td></tr><tr><td> 2025-10-18 ~13:00</td><td> Minting contract transfers 800M RVV to multi-signature</td><td> Price maintenance</td></tr><tr><td> 2025-10-18 14:00</td><td> Gate.io Opens Trading</td><td> Stable at ~$0.02</td></tr><tr><td> 2025-10-18 ~22:00</td><td> Multi-signature batch distribution begins selling</td><td> $0.0266 → $0.0105</td></tr><tr><td> 2025-10-19 00:00</td><td> Sell-off completes bottoming out</td><td> Minimum $0.0074</td></tr></tbody></table><h3> Project statement vs. on-chain truth</h3><p> <strong>Official statement</strong> :</p><ul><li> Claims that &quot;third-party market making accounts were hacked&quot;</li><li> Commitment to repurchase the same number of tokens</li><li> Provide a 10% bounty program for stolen funds</li></ul><p> <strong>On-chain analysts questioned</strong> :</p><ul><li> <strong>EmberCN</strong> : Which hacker would directly transfer USDT to a freezeable CEX?</li><li> <strong>ai_9684xtpa</strong> : Related parties maliciously sold $9.09 million</li><li> <strong>Lookonchain</strong> : 18 wallets abnormally dumped</li></ul><h3> Community sentiment: Harvest theory dominates</h3><p> <strong>Chinese community reaction</strong> :</p><ul><li> It is generally believed that this is a typical &quot;running away and cutting leeks&quot; behavior</li><li> Questioning whether the project owner used the name of &quot;hacker&quot; to cover up internal selling</li><li> Accusing the team of manipulating retail investors by extending the token lock-up period</li></ul><p> <strong>English community perspective</strong> :</p><ul><li> Considered the classic &quot;rug pull&quot; mode</li><li> It is suspected that hackers would transfer funds directly to CEX, which is easy to track.</li><li> Emphasize that on-chain evidence points to an internal multi-signature vulnerability rather than an external attack</li></ul><h3> Technical analysis: Organized market manipulation</h3><p> <strong>Abnormal characteristics</strong> :</p><ul><li> <strong>Abnormal trading volume</strong> : 24-hour trading volume is $78M+, which is 800-1500% of the market value</li><li> <strong>Coordinated sell-off</strong> : 18 wallets acted simultaneously, indicating pre-planning</li><li> <strong>Cash-out path</strong> : Use DEX aggregators to simulate normal transactions to avoid triggering alarms</li><li> <strong>Concentration of funds</strong> : The main profits are concentrated in 2 addresses (&gt;6.18 million USD)</li></ul><p> <strong>Evidence of price manipulation</strong> :</p><table><thead><tr><th> index</th><th> data</th><th> Abnormality</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td> Scale of sell-off</td><td> 890M RVV (8.6% of total supply)</td><td> Very high</td></tr><tr><td> Cash-out amount</td><td> $10.66M</td><td> Matching the scale of project financing</td></tr><tr><td> Execution time</td><td> Completed within 12 hours</td><td> Highly coordinated</td></tr><tr><td> CEX transfer</td><td> 82% of funds are withdrawn quickly</td><td> Not in line with hacking behavior</td></tr></tbody></table><h2> Conclusion: Who is reaping the benefits?</h2><p> Based on comprehensive analysis, <strong>the reapers are most likely internal project teams or related parties</strong> :</p><h3> Core evidence support</h3><ol><li> <strong>Source of funds</strong> : The sell-off comes directly from the minting contract and multi-signature wallet controlled by the project party</li><li> <strong>Behavior pattern</strong> : decentralized but coordinated selling, more like internal optimization cashing than hacking</li><li> <strong>Funds flow</strong> : Directly transferred to a CEX that can be frozen, which does not meet the anonymity preferences of hackers</li><li> <strong>Time node</strong> : Execute immediately after going online, in conjunction with financing and listing hype</li></ol><h3> Risk Warning</h3><ul><li> <strong>Trust crisis</strong> : The community&#39;s credibility in the project has basically collapsed</li><li> <strong>Legal risks</strong> : suspected securities fraud and market manipulation</li><li> <strong>Subsequent impact</strong> : Similar AI/Web3 concept projects face stricter scrutiny</li></ul><p> The RVV incident exemplifies the &quot;financing-listing-cash-out&quot; model of new projects. Investors should be highly vigilant against this type of systematic profiteering through hype and exchange <a href="https://www.odaily.news/en/newsflash/453010">endorsements</a> <a href="https://www.panewslab.com/en/articles/97b00bdd-f864-4bb6-b40c-a6e4a005e631">.</a></p>
