黑客从麦当劳窃取70万美元-最新加密货币新闻

币界网Publicado a 2024-08-22Actualizado a 2024-08-22

币界网报道:

最近对麦当劳官方Instagram帐户的网络攻击导致70万美元的重大损失。黑客利用该平台推广了一个名为Grimace的欺诈性模因币项目。与此同时,以太坊ETF基金正在经历自成立以来最长的资金外流,大量提款掩盖了新的投资。相比之下,贝莱德的iShares以太坊信托正接近10亿美元净流入的里程碑。

内容隐藏1黑客是怎么发生的?2以太坊ETF市场正在发生什么?3个关键要点

黑客是怎么发生的?

8月21日,网络犯罪分子劫持了麦当劳的Instagram页面,并利用该页面传播了一个名为Grimace的假代币的信息,利用了这家快餐连锁店可识别的紫色吉祥物。骗子们设法在索拉纳吸走了70多万美元,导致了巨大的经济损失。社交媒体上流传的截图显示,被黑客攻击的账户发布了多条帖子,谎称模因币是麦当劳在Solana区块链上的一个实验项目。访问COINTURK FINANCE获取最新的金融和商业新闻。

黑客利用Solana平台Pump Fun来保护Grimace代币总流通量的75%,然后将其分发到大约100个不同的钱包中。这种快速操纵导致代币的价值最初飙升,然后随着黑客清算其持有的代币而崩溃,最终为他们带来了约70万美元的非法收益。

以太坊ETF市场正在发生什么?

在加密货币市场的另一个领域,以太坊ETF经历了前所未有的外流期。以太坊现货交易所交易基金已连续五天出现资金外流,这是自7月23日推出以来最长的一次。Grayscale以太坊信托基金受到的影响尤其严重,截至8月21日,资金外流超过25亿美元。尽管存在这些挑战,贝莱德的iShares以太坊信托基金(ETHA)即将超过10亿美元净流入的重要里程碑。

据晨星公司称,ETHA已累计净流入约9.92亿美元,预计很快将突破10亿美元大关。晨星被动策略研究总监Bryan Armour指出,该信托可能会在8月21日交易结束前实现这一里程碑。尽管以太坊的价格几乎没有上涨势头,但这一发展仍然发生,机构投资者对加密货币保持着浓厚的兴趣。

关键要点

重要见解:

    社交媒体平台的网络安全仍然是一个关键问题,正如麦当劳Instagram黑客事件所示。投资者应警惕通过黑客账户推广的欺诈计划。以太坊ETF市场正在经历重大波动,Grayscale等某些基金的资金长期外流。然而,贝莱德的iShares以太坊信托继续吸引大量投资,接近10亿美元的净流入里程碑。

这些发展提供了网络安全格局和加密货币市场波动性的快照。

结论:最近的事件突显了加密货币行业网络安全威胁和市场波动的双重挑战。投资者和用户都必须保持警惕和知情,以有效应对这些复杂性。

您可以在Telegram、Twitter(X)和Coinmarketcap上关注我们的新闻。免责声明:本文所含信息不构成投资建议。投资者应该意识到加密货币具有高波动性,因此存在风险,应该进行自己的研究。

Lecturas Relacionadas

You Use Claude and Codex Every Day, but Meta Has Restricted Internal Use

In May, Meta imposed internal restrictions on its engineers regarding the use of Claude Code and Codex, two widely used AI programming tools. Despite being a major client, Meta's guidelines, still in effect, prohibit these external models from being used for specific tasks to prevent potential "escalations with partners." The core concern is "distillation"—the risk that outputs from Claude or Codex could inadvertently contaminate the training data and evaluation processes for Meta's in-house AI coding assistant, MetaCode. If MetaCode is trained or evaluated using data generated by these external models, it risks learning their capabilities rather than developing its own, blurring the line of intellectual origin. The restrictions are precise: engineers cannot use the external models to generate test questions, debug source code, or suggest test cases. AI-generated content is also barred from environments accessible to MetaCode. However, AI can still assist with peripheral tasks like workflow setup and code organization, provided all outputs are manually reviewed. This caution reflects a broader industry dilemma. While distillation is a common technique, using a competitor's model output for training raises legal and ethical questions about the ownership of derived capabilities. Contractual terms from companies like OpenAI and Anthropic explicitly forbid using their outputs to build competing products, putting enforcement power in the hands of rivals. The move is also financially motivated, as Meta seeks to reduce its hefty internal AI spending, estimated in the billions this year. Meta's policy illustrates the delicate balance companies must strike: leveraging powerful external AI tools while safeguarding the integrity and independence of their own AI development. As AI systems increasingly help build other AIs, distinguishing the origin of capabilities becomes a fundamental challenge for the entire industry.

marsbitHace 57 min(s)

You Use Claude and Codex Every Day, but Meta Has Restricted Internal Use

marsbitHace 57 min(s)

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

The article "Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?" explores the complex and often contentious integration of AI into the cultural and creative industries, particularly film and television. It begins with the cancellation of Amazon's AI-generated animation "Punky Duck," highlighting the ethical debates surrounding AI content. AI's rapid advancement is transforming video production, enabling cost-effective, full-length AI films (e.g., "RAPHAEL," "Dreams of Violets") while sparking industry resistance over issues like "synthetic actors." The core debate has shifted from whether to use AI to how to use it responsibly. The article analyzes why AI's entry into film is uniquely unsettling. It distinguishes between "cultural fast food" (short-form, fast-paced content like micro-dramas) and "cultural main courses" (traditional, long-form film/TV). AI currently excels at the former, matching its fragmented narratives, shallow emotional needs, and free-to-consumer models. However, venturing into the latter challenges the human-centric essence of storytelling—creativity, emotional depth, and the unique value of human labor and experience. While AI can generate massive volumes of content and lower costs, it risks devaluing human creativity, leading to homogenized output, and creating unfair competition through potential intellectual property infringement. Its efficiency also amplifies content safety risks, making preemptive governance crucial. To counter these risks, the article proposes establishing clear boundaries guided by a human-centered AI content perspective. It outlines four principles: 1) Amplify, rather than displace, human creative space; 2) Respect and protect human creative output; 3) Ensure human creative control and responsibility remain paramount; and 4) Guarantee transparency and traceability in AI creation. The conclusion emphasizes that humans must act as the "helmsmen" of technology, steering AI development to enhance, not replace, the core human values at the heart of cultural expression.

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

The recent discovery that two articles (published in 1940 and 1942) by Max Planck, the Nobel laureate and founder of quantum theory, are marked as "retracted" on Springer's digital platform highlights a curious clash between historical publishing practices and modern automated systems. An investigation suggests these retractions are algorithmic errors, not due to fraud or misconduct. The papers, philosophical reflections on science published in *Die Naturwissenschaften*, were likely flagged by the platform's systems. One article, a republished lecture, may have been mistaken for duplicate publication. Another, sharing a title with a prior article by a different author (a common practice for continuing debates at the time), may have triggered a similar automated check. The digital versions have even been replaced with blank pages, contrary to normal practice of preserving retracted texts. This incident underscores how contemporary digital infrastructure, built around concepts like "self-plagiarism" and strict copyright, can misclassify and obscure legitimate historical scholarly communication. It serves as a warning that digital archives are not neutral mirrors of the past but are filtered by platform rules, potentially distorting the scientific record. As AI systems increasingly rely on such databases, such erroneous metadata could propagate, affecting how future tools interpret and access historical knowledge.

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Trading

Spot
活动图片