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

比推2026-01-01 tarihinde yayınlandı2026-01-01 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

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

İlgili Sorular

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.

İlgili Okumalar

Ethereum Q1 2026 Report: Fees Decline, Users and Transaction Volume Hit New Highs

Ethereum Q1 2026 Report: Fees Down, Users & Transactions Hit New Highs Token Terminal's Q1 2026 report on Ethereum presents a pivotal development: the network achieved record highs in monthly active users (13.2M, +85.9% YoY), total transactions (200.4M, +81.5% YoY), and throughput (25.78 TPS), while transaction fees on the mainnet plummeted by 47.9% quarter-over-quarter. This shift is attributed to the network's strategic move into a "low fees for scale" phase, exemplified by the Fusaka upgrade which increased data capacity and lowered block space costs, releasing pent-up demand (a manifestation of Jevons's Paradox). The report highlights a core narrative shift for Ethereum: from a DeFi-centric blockchain to a global financial settlement layer. It maintains a dominant position in tokenized assets, holding majority market shares among top chains in stablecoins (61.8%), tokenized funds (73.0%), and tokenized commodities (84.0%). Growth in tokenized funds (+73.1% YoY) and commodities (+325.9% YoY) was particularly strong, driven by institutions like BlackRock and JPMorgan entering the space. Contrasting these usage gains, several USD-denominated value metrics declined in Q1: fully diluted market cap fell 30.3% QoQ, total value locked (TVL) dropped 11.0%, and ecosystem transaction volume decreased 24.0%. The report interprets this as Ethereum prioritizing long-term network expansion and cementing its role as the default settlement layer for finance over short-term fee capture. The commentary from Etherealize argues that, much like the early internet, Ethereum's open, permissionless model is poised to win over closed alternatives as institutional tokenization accelerates.

marsbit4 dk önce

Ethereum Q1 2026 Report: Fees Decline, Users and Transaction Volume Hit New Highs

marsbit4 dk önce

He Just Raised 2.7 Billion, and Li Fei-Fei Also Invested

Pete Florence, a former senior research scientist at Google DeepMind and a key contributor to the Vision-Language-Action (VLA) model architecture, is deliberately distancing his startup, Generalist AI, from the trendy "world model" label. He argues that the industry should prioritize concrete goals over buzzwords. His goal is to create robots that can perform a vast range of unseen tasks with high speed and success rates, without needing task-specific training data. Recently, his company raised $400 million (¥2.7 billion) at a $2 billion valuation. Notable investors include NVIDIA's NVentures, Bezos Expeditions, NFDG, as well as Xiaomi co-founder Lin Bin, Zoom founder Eric Yuan, and renowned AI scientist Fei-Fei Li. Florence's approach stems from his academic background at MIT under Professor Russ Tedrake, focusing on understanding the physical world. After joining DeepMind, he developed models like Transporter Network and co-created the VLA framework. He left in 2025 to found Generalist AI. The company has launched two models: GEN-0, which demonstrated that scaling laws apply to physical motion, and GEN-1. GEN-1 was trained on over 500,000 hours of physical interaction data collected via a specialized wearable device. It achieves a 99% success rate on precise mechanical tasks like folding boxes and maintains performance three times faster than its predecessor. Florence believes GEN-1 is reaching a commercial utility threshold similar to the GPT-3 inflection point. The substantial funding round, following GEN-1's release, signifies strong investor confidence in Generalist AI's practical, goal-driven path to creating versatile, useful robots, regardless of the "world model" terminology.

marsbit11 dk önce

He Just Raised 2.7 Billion, and Li Fei-Fei Also Invested

marsbit11 dk önce

Two Legends Lost in Three Days: Is Google's AI Talent Dam Cracking?

In three days, Google lost two AI legends. On June 18, Noam Shazeer, co-author of the seminal "Attention is All You Need" paper and Gemini co-lead, left for OpenAI. Just 48 hours later, John Jumper, 2024 Nobel laureate and AlphaFold lead, departed DeepMind for Anthropic. This follows Andrej Karpathy joining Anthropic in May. These moves highlight a structural trend: top AI talent is concentrating at mission-driven, pre-IPO firms like OpenAI and Anthropic, while Google becomes a primary source. The exodus stems from a core mission mismatch. Google's ad-centric model often subordinates AI research to product and revenue goals, creating friction for pioneers like Shazeer, who returned in 2024 only to leave again. In contrast, OpenAI and Anthropic offer singular focus on pushing AI boundaries, whether towards AGI or safety-aligned models, which deeply appeals to top researchers like Jumper. Financial incentives amplify the pull. With both OpenAI and Anthropic nearing IPO, employees stand to gain immensely from equity, an upside Google's mature stock cannot match. Furthermore, the 2023 merger of Google Brain and DeepMind, intended to consolidate strength, has instead created cultural tension and slowed the path from research to product, as evidenced by Gemini's pace. This talent redistribution is reshaping the AI landscape. While Google retains vast data and compute resources, its true crisis is the quiet, continuous loss of the people who define the field's future. The real moat in AI is not infrastructure, but the concentration of brilliant minds—a battle Google is currently losing.

marsbit2 saat önce

Two Legends Lost in Three Days: Is Google's AI Talent Dam Cracking?

marsbit2 saat önce

Behind the AI Report Card, Lies a Chinese 'Exam Setter'

Beyond the familiar performance charts like MMLU-Pro and MMMU, which major AI models strive to ace, stands a key "examiner": Chinese-Canadian researcher Wenhu Chen. An assistant professor at the University of Waterloo and founder of TIGERLab, Chen addresses the crucial need for more rigorous AI evaluation. As models like GPT-4 began scoring near-perfect results on older benchmarks like MMLU, it became difficult to distinguish their true capabilities. In response, Chen introduced MMLU-Pro in 2024, featuring harder, more reasoning-focused questions with more answer choices, successfully reintroducing meaningful performance gaps. His work extends to multi-modal evaluation with MMMU and its enhanced version, MMMU-Pro. These benchmarks test a model's ability to understand and reason with complex information from images, charts, and text across diverse academic subjects, exposing the significant challenges even top models face in genuine comprehension. Chen's background in complex QA, table reasoning, and his experience at Google DeepMind on projects like Gemini inform his approach. He understands that effective benchmarks must anticipate how models might "cheat" by memorizing data or avoiding visual analysis. His lab also actively researches video understanding and generation models (e.g., UniVideo, Vamba), ensuring his evaluation work is grounded in practical model-building challenges. Now at Meta's Super Intelligence Lab, Chen continues his focus on multi-modal data and evaluation, representing the deep yet often unseen contributions of Chinese talent in shaping the fundamental tools of the AI industry.

marsbit2 saat önce

Behind the AI Report Card, Lies a Chinese 'Exam Setter'

marsbit2 saat önce

İşlemler

Spot
Futures
活动图片