上亿美元XRP被盗，竟来自联创个人账户，Ripple陷透明度质疑

Odaily星球日报2024-02-01 tarihinde yayınlandı2024-02-01 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

前CTO 8年抛售价值30亿美元代币，其他联创手里还有多少币？

原创 | Odaily星球日报

作者 | Loopy Lu

上亿美元XRP被盗，竟来自联创个人账户，Ripple陷透明度质疑

昨日，一则“ 1 亿美元 XRP 被盗”的消息一时间席卷了整个加密市场。而在短短一日之内，这一事件反转连连， 引发诸多质疑与讨论。

在明确 Ripple 公司并未遭受损失，系其联创个人账户被盗之后，社区却又对 Ripple 的独立性表示了不信任。

Odaily星球日报带你回顾“XRP 被盗案”的前因后果及其对市场的影响。

高达 2 亿枚 XRP 被盗，开年第一大黑客案

昨日晚间，链上分析师 ZachXBT 发现，Ripple 被盗。一时间，XRP 这个老主流币成为了市场讨论的中心。

ZachXBT 在 X 平台表示，Ripple 遭黑客攻击被窃取 2.13 亿枚 XRP，价值约合 1.125 亿美元。而链上信息显示，被盗资金已通过 MEXC、Gate、Binance、Kraken、OKX、HTX、HitBTC 等进行清洗。

上亿美元XRP被盗，竟来自联创个人账户，Ripple陷透明度质疑

或是受到这一大额被盗事件的影响，XRP 的币价也出现了大幅的波动。一时间分不清究竟是黑客在抛盘，还是市场引发的投资者恐慌。

上亿美元XRP被盗，竟来自联创个人账户，Ripple陷透明度质疑

欧易 OKX 行情显示，XRP 短时快速下跌，最低触达 0.485 USDT，一小时内振幅为 4.81% 。但很快，XRP 行情就收回了跌幅，甚至还在后续的几小时内由跌转涨。

2024 年刚刚过去仅仅一个月，这一黑客就为我们刷新了被盗新纪录。这是 2024 年迄今为止最大的加密货币盗窃案，也是加密世界迄今为止第 20 大加密货币盗窃案。

Kraken 发言人 Megan Thorpe 也证实，Kraken 已经知晓了这次黑客攻击，他表示：“我们已知道这一事件。我们拥有事件响应能力，并会主动审查并识别此类事件、与受害者接触。Kraken 会防止以这种方式被（不法者）使用。”

而这一事件的后续，Ripple 的官方发声，让事件的走向产生了一些变化。

Ripple 公司安全，创始人遭殃

被盗事件发生不久之后，Ripple 创始人 Chris Larsen 在 X 平台进行了官方的发声。

他表示，这是一起孤立事件，Ripple 钱包是安全的，且从未受到损害。同时，Ripple 正在与执法部门合作，他们得知，很大一部分资金已被冻结，并且正在积极追查剩余资金。

上亿美元XRP被盗，竟来自联创个人账户，Ripple陷透明度质疑

（Ripple 联合创始人的 X 推文）

上亿美元XRP被盗，竟来自联创个人账户，Ripple陷透明度质疑

（Ripple CEO 的 X 推文）

而在另一则声明中，我们得以知晓这一事件的更详细情况。Ripple 或许并未遭受损失，但 Ripple 倒霉的联合创始人缺蒙受了这一损失。

上亿美元XRP被盗，竟来自联创个人账户，Ripple陷透明度质疑

Ripple 联合创始人 Chris Larsen 表示，他的个人 XRP 账户遭到了未经授权的访问。截至目前为止，我们尚不清楚这一入侵是如何发生的。

独立性引发质疑，是否会重现昔日大额抛售？

XRPScan 的数据显示，被黑客入侵的钱包 Ripple 于 2018 年 11 月 5 日被另一个名为 FundingWallet 1 的钱包激活。这个钱包是在 2013 年由 Larsen 的账户激活的。

在 Chris Larsen 做出澄清之后，虽然人们得知了 Ripple 公司的资金仍然安全。但Odaily星球日报从推文下发现了一个有趣的现象——诸多网友均对这一事件表示了讽刺，质疑的矛头直指 Ripple 的独立性。

在声明中，他直指是“我的一些个人账户”被盗。这也引发了人们对 Ripple 高管究竟持有多少 XRP 的猜想。部分社区成员呼吁 Ripple 高管进一步披露他们的加密钱包和 XRP 持有量，以提高透明度。

上亿美元XRP被盗，竟来自联创个人账户，Ripple陷透明度质疑

例如，披露了这起被盗事件的 ZachXBT 就做出了这样的评论，“完全独立的实体”，一次来讥讽 Ripple 对 XRP 的控制。

推特用户Cash Looter 则对联合创始人夸张的财富表示了疑惑，“兄弟，个人是如何拥有 1 亿美元 XRP 的？”Duo Nine YCC 也有同样的困惑，“哦，所以你随便就能拥有价值 1.12 亿美元的 XRP。”

Satoshi Club 则对高管的透明度表示了不信任，“如果链上侦探从未披露，你不会告诉公众是吗？”

上亿美元XRP被盗，竟来自联创个人账户，Ripple陷透明度质疑

Ripple 早已离开市场关注的中心，但仍然市值庞大，常年位居加密市场市值 Top 10 。

Coingecko 数据显示，目前 XRP 约 268 亿美元，为第六大加密货币。而在 XRP 漫长的历史中，高管的大额抛售早已发生，且持续长达数年。

Ripple 第一任首席技术官 Jed McCaleb 曾是项目启动时核心创始团队中的一员，在XRP 的初始分配中与 Chris Larsen 以及 Arthur Britto 共同享有约 200 亿枚 XRP 的份额。 2014 年，由于观念冲突，McCaleb 选择了离开，并带走了总计约 90 亿 XRP。自此，McCaleb 开始了长达八年的 XRP 抛售。这也一直是 XRP 最重要的抛压来源之一。

在长达 8 年的时间里，根据Odaily星球日报的估算，McCaleb合计套现总值约为 31.267 亿美元。

由于从 Ripple 出走，McCaleb 的抛售我们有目共睹，而 Ripple 的其他创始人究竟拥有多少 XRP、是否大额抛售、何时抛售，社区仍未可知。

因此，本次个人钱包被盗之后，社区不乏对这一历史悠久的项目展开了嘲讽。在 Ripple 漫长的历史中，高管究竟对这一项目带来了哪些有益的 build，又增加了多大的抛压呢？

作为一款加密世界的早期项目，Ripple 的独立性的确在遭受着社区的考验，在漫长的发展道路上，许多投资者也已对其失去信心。

欧易 OKX 数据显示，以 BTC 做为本位，XRP 价格近年来持续宽幅震荡，并未取得明显涨幅。目前 XRP/BTC 汇率较最高点跌去 74% ，处于相对低位，但仍未达最低点。

上亿美元XRP被盗，竟来自联创个人账户，Ripple陷透明度质疑

（XRP/BTC 周线图）

2023 年第四季度，Ripple Labs 赢得与美监管部门诉讼。纽约南区美国地方法院宣布 XRP 不是证券。SEC 撤回了对 Ripple CEO 和联合创始人 Chris Larsen 的所有指控。目前，困扰 Ripple 数年之久的司法纠纷已经终结，在 2024 年（市场所预期的牛市之中），我们仍然期待着这个古老的项目，可以做出一些令人眼前一亮的创新或变革。Ripple 前方的道路，恐怕仍然颇为艰难。

İlgili Okumalar

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

In mid-June, three seemingly independent industry events—the compliance-driven throttling of Fable 5, the open-sourcing of GLM-5.2, and the leaked release timeline for GPT-5.6—are pushing the global AI industry toward a watershed moment. These shifts signal a fundamental restructuring of the industry's underlying logic. First, **"usability" has substantially overtaken "advanced capabilities"** as the primary weight, pushing the global large language model (LLM) supply chain into a "dual-track" phase of controlled closed-source and local open-source coexistence. Second, **the competitive moats of closed-source giants are shifting**. Their technical focus is moving from "language intelligence" toward "spatial intelligence (world models)"—a domain heavily reliant on computing power. Third, faced with常态化 transnational compliance risks, **a "model-agnostic" decoupled design has become a survival necessity for application-layer developers to maintain business continuity.** The article details how Anthropic's Fable 5, despite its advanced engineering feats, was restricted for non-U.S. citizens within 72 hours of launch, highlighting how geopolitical compliance can instantly limit even the most advanced models. In response, the open-source camp, exemplified by Zhipu AI's MIT-licensed GLM-5.2, is gaining market share by offering stable performance improvements and significant cost advantages (up to 70% savings for enterprises), while achieving full adaptation with domestic semiconductor platforms. Meanwhile, closed-source leaders like OpenAI are pivoting. The anticipated GPT-5.6 reportedly shifts focus from language to spatial intelligence and world models, aiming to rebuild a generational gap in areas like 3D understanding, simulation, and industrial design that demand immense compute. The core conclusion is that the LLM supply chain's logic has changed. Enterprises must now evaluate infrastructure based on a composite of technical performance and policy compliance. For developers, complete reliance on a single closed-source API poses unacceptable risk. Implementing a truly model-agnostic architecture—enabling swift switches to compliant, locally deployable open-source alternatives—is no longer just good practice but a fundamental baseline for business continuity.

marsbit20 dk önce

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

marsbit20 dk önce

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

The article discusses the ongoing "token subsidy war" among AI giants like OpenAI and Anthropic, questioning whether it's nearing its end. It reveals that current AI subscription prices are heavily subsidized, with some plans offering tokens at up to 70 times the actual cost to attract and retain heavy users, especially developers and enterprises. This strategy mirrors past internet-era subsidy battles, but with a key difference: AI tokens lack "lock-in" effects. Unlike ride-hailing or food delivery apps, users can easily switch between AI providers as APIs become standardized, making it difficult for companies to raise prices post-subsidy. The piece highlights a structural asymmetry in the competition. Giants like Google, with massive advertising revenue, can afford to subsidize tokens indefinitely, akin to using "tokens as a weapon." In contrast, venture-backed companies like OpenAI and Anthropic face pressure to become profitable, especially as they approach IPO. The article cites Google Ventures founder Bill Maris, who suggests Google could slash token prices by 80%, putting immense pressure on competitors. Two potential endgames are presented: the "internet service" model (subsidize, monopolize, then raise prices) and the "utility" model (tokens become a standardized, low-margin commodity like electricity). Given the low switching costs, the latter seems more likely. The competition may not have a single winner but could instead accelerate AI's evolution into a foundational, infrastructure-level technology, akin to a public utility. For now, users continue to benefit from heavily subsidized token costs.

marsbit37 dk önce

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

marsbit37 dk önce

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

"Beyond the Pitch: The Profit Game Around the World Cup" The FIFA World Cup transcends being a sporting spectacle, evolving into a massive global arena for speculation and profit-seeking. The 2026 tournament has amplified this dynamic, creating a multi-layered ecosystem of financial opportunism alongside the football. **Prediction markets** have surged into the mainstream. Platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi saw trading volumes for World Cup contracts soar, attracting new users with their financial trading model and high-profile, chain-based wealth stories that overshadow traditional sports betting in terms of growth and narrative. However, **traditional sportsbooks** remain the dominant force, leveraging established user habits, legal markets, and comprehensive product offerings to handle the vast majority of speculative wagers, with projections suggesting record-breaking betting volumes. Capital markets also react. **"Concept stocks"** in countries like South Korea and Japan experience volatile price swings based on team performance and anticipated fan spending on items like chicken, beer, and viewing parties, effectively becoming a stock market reflecting fan sentiment. The **ticket resale market** has become a sophisticated arena for arbitrage. Prices fluctuate wildly based on team draws and star power, with sellers sometimes listing tickets they don't yet own in a practice akin to short-selling, while FIFA's own "Right to Buy" tokens add another layer of speculative trading. **Collectibles and merchandise** offer another avenue. Panini sticker albums, with their inherent scarcity and nostalgic value, can become high-value collectibles. Limited-edition or locally themed jerseys command significant premiums on secondary markets, and even counterfeit vendors profit from fans' desire for affordable match-day identity. The **cryptocurrency** space has seen a frenzy of speculative, unauthorized World Cup-themed meme coins on chains like Solana. These tokens, often exploiting team names and player imagery, experience extreme pump-and-dump cycles, creating stories of massive gains for a few early entrants and steep losses for many others. Finally, an entire industry thrives on **providing information and tools** to other speculators. Developers create platforms like SeatSidekick to track ticket inventory and prices, while paid Telegram groups and subscriptions sell betting tips and predictions, monetizing the widespread desire for an informational edge. In essence, the World Cup has become a compressed, global laboratory for speculation. While the games determine champions on the field, a parallel, complex network of financial transactions—spanning prediction contracts, bets, stocks, tickets, collectibles, crypto, and information services—settles its own scores in the global market.

marsbit1 saat önce

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

marsbit1 saat önce

Hyperliquid ETF Claim Draws Attention As HYPE Narrative Builds On X

A social media claim has brought attention to Hyperliquid (HYPE) and the growth of its related ETF products. According to a June 20 post on X by AlphaOnChain, three Hyperliquid ETFs launched in May 2026 have collectively amassed $158 million in assets under management, led by a Bitwise fund with $88 million and a 21Shares fund with $66 million. The article notes this claim is from social media and not verified by official issuer data, advising caution. Nonetheless, the report highlights that HYPE is gaining traction as a notable altcoin narrative. Its focus on on-chain perpetual trading and exchange infrastructure places it at the intersection of DeFi and derivatives, attracting traders looking for high-conviction plays beyond Bitcoin and Ethereum. The key takeaway is that while social momentum can influence short-term markets, sustainable growth for HYPE would require confirmed demand, liquidity, and continued ecosystem development.

bitcoinist2 saat önce

Hyperliquid ETF Claim Draws Attention As HYPE Narrative Builds On X

bitcoinist2 saat önce

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

This article explains the three primary methods for Codex to interact with a computer, each with distinct use cases, permission boundaries, and trust levels. **1. Computer Use:** This offers the broadest access, allowing Codex to visually control and interact with the graphical user interface of authorized macOS/Windows apps, system settings, and even iOS simulators. It's ideal for tasks lacking APIs or structured tools, such as operating legacy software or multi-app workflows. However, it's the slowest method and has the widest permission scope, requiring careful supervision for sensitive actions. **2. Chrome Extension:** This grants Codex access to the user's logged-in Chrome browser state, including cookies, profiles, and open tabs. It's best for tasks requiring user identity across websites like Gmail, LinkedIn, Salesforce, or internal dashboards. Its key advantage is multi-tab control for complex workflows. While more powerful for browser-based tasks than Computer Use, it carries higher sensitivity as actions are performed under the user's identity. **3. In-App Browser:** This is a browser isolated within the Codex thread, separate from the user's personal browsing data. It excels in web development and debugging scenarios—previewing local servers, testing responsive layouts, or annotating designs directly on the page. Its isolation is a strength for development but a limitation for tasks requiring login sessions. The core principle is to choose the narrowest, safest, and most structured interface for the task. Use plugins or MCPs first, resort to visual control (Computer Use) only for GUI-dependent tasks, employ the Chrome extension for identity-reliant browser work, and prefer the In-App Browser for isolated development. **Appshots** are clarified as a fourth, complementary tool for *inputting* context—capturing a screenshot of a window to point Codex to something—rather than a method for Codex to *act*. Together, this layered approach highlights a key to AI agent productization: not granting unlimited permissions, but constraining them within clear boundaries for specific tasks while preserving user oversight.

marsbit2 saat önce

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

marsbit2 saat önce

İşlemler

Spot
Futures
活动图片