2026 Opening with Millions in Profit: 'God of War' Vida Reviews the Entire Trading Process of the BROCCOLI714 Incident

比推Published on 2026-01-01Last updated on 2026-01-01

Abstract

In January 2026, crypto trader Vida profited over $1 million during the BROCCOLI714 incident, which involved a suspected hacked market maker account on Binance. Vida’s pre-existing $200,000 long position in BROCCOLI714 and a $500,000 funding rate arbitrage position were already in place. Alert systems triggered when the token’s price surged abnormally and a massive spot-contract price gap emerged. Recognizing the order book showed a highly unusual $26 million in buy orders—indicating a hack or system error rather than legitimate market activity—Vida quickly closed his arbitrage positions for a $300,000 gain. He then capitalized on the volatility by adding long positions in Binance perpetual contracts during a brief “reduce-only” lift and later selling his holdings for $1.5 million as signs of the attacker’s withdrawal emerged. Anticipating a crash once Binance risk controls intervened, Vida opened $400,000 in short positions around $0.065 and closed near $0.02, further boosting profits. Key factors included his automated alert systems, real-time order book analysis, collaboration with other traders, and correctly predicting the attacker’s exit strategy.

Vida : Born after 2000, founder of Equation News, skilled in program trading. He has shared stories of making tens of millions of dollars in the crypto market.

Preliminary Context: At 01:23 AM Beijing Time on January 1, 2026, Equation News monitored: A market maker's Binance account was highly suspected to be compromised. The potential attacker was疑似 using approximately $10 million to $20 million from the account to集中 pump the price of the BROCCOLI714-USDT trading pair on the Binance spot market.

Below is the full text by Vida:

《Review: Making $1 Million in the Recent BROCCOLI714 Hack Incident》

Preconditions and Infrastructure:

- I had a long-term accumulated position of $200,000 in BROCCOLI714 at a cost of 0.016, purchased around early November this year. It included both spot and contract holdings. After buying, I was trapped and too afraid to even look at it.

- The market maker's manipulation style in October-November was to rapidly pump the price within a few hours and then immediately dump with a large bearish candle. So, I set up an alert for my small-cap holdings that would wake me up if the price increased by over 30% within 1800 seconds.

- I also had a Binance perpetual contract funding rate arbitrage position for BROCCOLI714USDT with an average entry price of around 0.015 and a size of $500,000.

When the huge spot-contract price disparity occurred: My short-term surge alert program and my spot-contract spread alert program were both疯狂 alarming > prompting me to focus fully and rush to my computer to start working.

I第一时间 mentioned this situation in a core Chinese group on带带:

- My first reaction was to quickly close my funding rate arbitrage position. Because my original $500,000 arbitrage hedge position had become $800,000 in spot value and $500,000 in contracts. I immediately closed all arbitrage positions to lock in a profit of $300,000.

– But upon second thought, it felt very反常 because historically, no market maker would pump the spot market so violently regardless of the spread. I took a look at the order book depth and was震惊 to find that the bid-side 10% depth on Binance spot had $5 million in buy orders, while the contract side's bid 10% depth was only $50,000. Someone suggested a suspected Binance account hack, which I also found reasonable.

– I looked at the order book on the Binance main site again and was shocked to find that for BROCCOLI714, a coin with a market cap of $40m at the time, there were $26 million in bid orders. From this, I inferred that it must be either a hacked account or a market maker program bug, because no market maker would be foolish enough to play charity like this in the spot market.

- Seeing that the hacker had $26 million in ammunition on the spot order book, I knew his goal was to pump the spot market > lift the contract price > exit his position on the contracts.

So I monitored the changes in Binance's order book on one screen. I knew that as long as the hacker didn't withdraw the $20 million in buy orders on the spot market, the price of BROCCOLI714 would keep rising.

My first thought at this point was to go long on Binance contracts, but I found that the Binance contracts had already triggered the "circuit breaker protection mechanism" (reduce-only mode).

At that time, BROCCOLI spot was already at 0.07, while Binance contracts were capped at 0.038 by the circuit breaker mechanism, and Bybit contracts had risen to 0.055. So I chose to attempt a long position on the Binance BROCCOLI714USDT perpetual contract every 5-10 seconds on my trading terminal. If the order succeeded, it meant the circuit breaker period was over, meaning the Binance contract would pump.

I successfully蹲守到 this opportunity and added approximately $200,000 in long positions at a contract entry cost of 0.046.

- I knew this incident was必然 caused by a hacker or a market maker program bug, and the short-term surge was too high. The final outcome would inevitably be a complete mess.

So I kept watching the Binance spot order book.

The hacker withdrew his orders once midway, leading me to believe he had been sanctioned by Binance's risk control department. So, at Beijing Time 2026-01-01 04:20:52.732, I started using my trading program to疯狂 sell > liquidate all my previously held + later added long BROCCOLI714 spot and contract positions regardless of cost.

My original $200,000 accumulated position + the later added $200,000 roughly cashed out to $1.5 million. (A lot of the original accumulated position was opened in the contract market, so I didn't capture as much premium)

After being scared off by the hacker's withdrawal of buy orders at 4:21, the不讲武德 hacker挂回 the buy orders about 1 minute later and directly pumped the price to 0.15.

But I knew he would eventually be sanctioned by Binance's risk control department. And once his account was risk-controlled > bids withdrawn > broccoli would crash, it was just that the staff might be lazy at 1.1 AM so he hadn't been risk-controlled yet.

So I kept a close eye on the order book.

Later, at 4:31, I noticed the hacker really withdrew all the bids. At 4:32, they were completely withdrawn. And this time, they didn't reappear for a long time + group friends said someone probably contacted Binance tech, and he was likely sanctioned.

So I started shorting. I opened roughly $400,000 in short positions on Binance contracts at an average cost of around 0.065. The final closing price was approximately 0.02.

Revisiting why I was able to seize this opportunity:

1. Price anomaly alerts for small-cap strategies
- I set up short-term price surge alerts for small-cap strategies. As long as a held small-cap coin experiences an ultra-large price increase in a short time, it triggers a mandatory alert, 100% guaranteed to wake me up. – In the funding rate arbitrage strategy, I also set up monitoring: once a huge spread between spot and contract is detected, it triggers a mandatory alert.

2. Identifying反常 price action and verifying the order book
When I saw clearly反常 price action, the first thing I did was look at the order book to judge how much ammunition the "market maker" actually had. The result: For a coin with only a $30 million market cap, there were $20 million USDT in bids on the Binance spot side. From this, I judged this couldn't be normal market maker manipulation, but more like hacker behavior or a market maker's system bug (no market maker would pump the spot so recklessly and foolishly regardless of cost).

3. Still need to communicate more with experts. Brainstorming among several experts often helps figure out the entire剧本玩法 in the first moment.

4. I was very clear about the second phase玩法:
Wait for the hacker to be sanctioned by Binance's risk control department and withdraw the bid orders, then蹲守 this opportunity to short. So after completing the first phase of selling, I kept staring at the order book, waiting for this opportunity to appear. I waited over ten minutes and really managed to蹲守到 it.

One behavior made me guess the BROCCOLI714 hacker was probably wrapping up, because at Beijing Time 4:28:15, he不计成本 bought SOLUSDT spot, pumping it by about 5% >>> which triggered my pre-set alert again, letting me know.

I guessed that his account might have been partially restricted by Binance from placing new orders in the BROCCOLI714 market, so he狗急跳墙 and bought SOL instead.

结果真的 (Sure enough), 3 minutes later the BROCCOLI price collapsed.


Twitter:https://twitter.com/BitpushNewsCN

Bitpush TG Discussion Group:https://t.me/BitPushCommunity

Bitpush TG Subscription: https://t.me/bitpush

Original article link:https://www.bitpush.news/articles/7599510

Related Questions

QWhat was the initial position and cost basis of Vida's long-term BROCCOLI714 holdings?

AVida had a long-term BROCCOLI714 position with a cost basis of $0.016, totaling $200,000, which was accumulated in early November.

QWhat two types of alerts did Vida have set up that helped him detect the unusual market activity?

AHe had two alerts: one for a price increase of over 30% within 1800 seconds for his small-cap holdings, and another for a significant spot-contract price difference in his funding rate arbitrage strategy.

QWhat observation in the order book led Vida to conclude this was not normal market maker activity but likely a hack or bug?

AHe observed that for a coin with a market cap of around $40 million, there was an unusually large bid of $26 million USDT on the Binance spot order book, which no rational market maker would place.

QWhy did Vida decide to short BROCCOLI714 after initially selling his long positions?

AHe anticipated that the hacker's buy orders would eventually be withdrawn after being sanctioned by Binance's risk control department, causing the price to crash, which would create an opportunity to profit from a short position.

QWhat final clue suggested to Vida that the hacker was being restricted and that the BROCCOLI714 price was about to collapse?

AThe hacker made an irrational large purchase of SOLUSDT, spiking its price by 5%, which Vida interpreted as the hacker being blocked from trading BROCCOLI714 and acting out of desperation. The price of BROCCOLI714 collapsed shortly after.

Related Reads

Anthropic and OpenAI Have Single-Handedly Severed the Logic of Pre-IPO Stock Tokenization

The pre-IPO stock token market is experiencing significant turmoil following strong statements from AI giants Anthropic and OpenAI. Both companies have updated their official policies, declaring that any transfer of their company shares—including sales, transfers, or assignments of share interests—without prior board approval is "invalid" and will not be recognized in their corporate records. This means buyers in such unauthorized transactions would not be recognized as shareholders and would have no shareholder rights. A major point of contention is the use of Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs), which are legal entities commonly used by pre-IPO token platforms to pool investor funds and indirectly acquire shares from employees or early investors. The companies explicitly state they do not permit SPVs to acquire their shares, and any such transfer violates their restrictions. They warn that third parties selling shares through SPVs, direct sales, forward contracts, or stock tokens are likely engaged in fraud or are offering worthless investments due to these transfer limits. This stance directly threatens the core model of many pre-IPO token platforms, which rely on SPV structures. The announcement revealed additional risks within this model, such as complex "SPV-within-SPV" layering that obscures legal transparency, increases management fees, and creates a chain reaction risk of invalidation. Following the news, tokens like ANTHROPIC and OPENAI on platforms like PreStocks fell sharply (over 20%). The market reaction highlights a divergence: while asset-backed pre-IPO tokens plummeted, purely speculative pre-IPO futures contracts, which are bilateral bets on future IPO prices with no claim to actual shares, remained relatively stable as they are unaffected by the transfer restrictions. The industry is split on the implications. Some believe the fundamental logic of pre-IPO token trading is broken if leading companies reject SPV-held shares, potentially causing a domino effect. Others, like Rivet founder Nick Abouzeid, argue that buyers of such unofficial tokens always knowingly accepted the risk of non-recognition by the company. The statements serve as a stark risk warning and a corrective measure for a market where valuations for some AI-related pre-IPO tokens had soared to irrational levels, far exceeding recent funding round valuations.

marsbit47m ago

Anthropic and OpenAI Have Single-Handedly Severed the Logic of Pre-IPO Stock Tokenization

marsbit47m ago

Anthropic and OpenAI Personally Sever the Logic of Pre-IPO Crypto-Stocks

The pre-IPO token market has been rocked by strong statements from Anthropic and OpenAI. Both AI giants have updated official warnings, declaring that any sale or transfer of their company shares without explicit board approval is "invalid" and will not be recognized on their corporate records. This directly targets Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs), the common legal structure used by pre-IPO token platforms. These platforms typically use an SPV to acquire shares from employees or early investors, then issue blockchain-based tokens representing a claim on the SPV's economic benefits. Anthropic and OpenAI's position means that if an SPV's share purchase lacked authorization, the underlying asset could be deemed worthless, nullifying the token's value. Anthropic explicitly warned that any third party selling its shares—via direct sales, forwards, or tokens—is likely fraudulent or offering a valueless investment. The crackdown highlights risks in the popular SPV model, including complex multi-layered "Russian doll" SPV structures that obscure legal ownership, add fees, and concentrate risk. If one layer is invalidated, the entire chain could collapse. Following the announcements, tokens like ANTHROPIC and OPENAI on platforms like PreStocks fell sharply (over 20%). In contrast, purely speculative pre-IPO prediction contracts remained stable, as they involve no actual share ownership. The move is seen as a corrective measure amid a market frenzy where some pre-IPO token valuations (e.g., Anthropic's token hitting a $1.4 trillion implied valuation) far exceeded recent official funding rounds. Opinions are split: some believe this undermines the core logic of pre-IPO token trading if top companies reject SPVs, while others argue buyers always assumed this legal risk when accessing unofficial channels. The statements serve as a stark warning and a potential catalyst for market de-leveraging and clearer boundaries.

Odaily星球日报51m ago

Anthropic and OpenAI Personally Sever the Logic of Pre-IPO Crypto-Stocks

Odaily星球日报51m ago

The Waged Worker Driven to Poverty by AI Subscriptions

"AI Membership: The Hidden Cost Pushing Workers Toward 'Poverty'" The widespread corporate push for AI adoption is creating a hidden financial burden for employees. Companies, from giants like Alibaba to small firms, are mandating AI use, often tying token consumption to KPIs, but frequently refuse to cover the costs. Workers are forced to pay for subscriptions out of pocket to stay competitive and avoid being replaced. Front-end developer Long Shen spends up to 2000 RMB monthly on tools like Cursor and ChatGPT Plus, seeing it as a necessary 3% salary investment to handle 90% of his coding tasks. While it boosted his performance and led to promotions, he now faces idle time at work, pretending to be busy. Designer Peng Peng navigates strict company firewalls by using personal devices and accounts for AI image generation tools like Midjourney, spending hundreds monthly without reimbursement, while her boss demands faster, more numerous revisions. The pressure creates workplace anxiety and suspicion. Programmer Li Huahua, after a friend's experience of raised KPIs following AI success, fears being branded a "traitor" for using it yet worries about falling behind if she doesn't. The dynamic allows management to demand results without understanding the tools or covering expenses, treating employees like AI "agents." While some, like entrepreneur Jin Tu, find high value in paid AI, building entire systems and winning competitions, for most, it's a trap. Free tools like Kimi and Doubao are introducing fees, closing off alternatives. The initial efficiency gains individual advantage, but as AI becomes ubiquitous, the personal edge disappears, workloads increase, and a cycle of dependency begins. Workers like Long Shen realize they cannot maintain AI-generated code without AI, making stopping harder than continuing to pay. The tool promising liberation is instead becoming a compulsory, costly chain in the modern workplace.

marsbit1h ago

The Waged Worker Driven to Poverty by AI Subscriptions

marsbit1h ago

SK Hynix's Trillion-Won Empire: The Successors

"SK Hynix's Trillion-Won Empire and Its Heirs" explores the unconventional succession narrative within SK Group, South Korea's second-largest conglomerate, following SK Hynix's dramatic market rise. Unlike traditional chaebol scripts prioritizing the eldest son, ownership, and political marriages, Chairman Choi Tae-won's three children from his first marriage are charting distinct paths. The eldest daughter, Choi Yun-jeong, is considered the most visible candidate. With a background in biology, consulting, and a PhD, she holds executive roles at SK Bioscience and SK Inc.'s growth strategy unit, focusing on biopharma and new businesses. Her marriage is to an AI infrastructure entrepreneur, not a traditional chaebol heir. The second daughter, Choi Min-jeong, took a unique route by voluntarily serving as a South Korean naval officer, including a tour in the Gulf of Aden. She later worked on policy and strategy for SK Hynix in Washington D.C. before co-founding an AI-driven healthcare startup in San Francisco. She married a former U.S. Marine Corps officer, connecting the family to U.S. defense and policy networks. The son, Choi In-geun, who has Type 1 diabetes, followed a more classic preparatory path with a physics degree and a stint at SK E&S but left to join McKinsey's Seoul office. He remains publicly silent and holds no SK shares, defying the traditional "crown prince" archetype. Their paths unfold against the backdrop of their parents' high-profile, contentious divorce and a record-setting asset division lawsuit. The article argues that as SK Hynix becomes a geopolitical asset in the AI era, the conventional rules of chaebol inheritance are changing. The heirs are being groomed not simply to take over, but to navigate a complex global landscape defined by AI, biotech, geopolitics, and policy, forging legitimacy through their own expertise and networks rather than birth order alone.

marsbit1h ago

SK Hynix's Trillion-Won Empire: The Successors

marsbit1h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片