铼金造假,黄金也有自己的山寨币

marsbitОпубліковано о 2026-04-27Востаннє оновлено о 2026-04-27

作者:库里,深潮 TechFlow

「真金不怕火炼」这句话,今年开始不太好使了。

央视昨天曝光了一种黄金造假的新手法。浙江湖州长兴县一家金店,去年收了一条黄金项链,卖家说是拿以前买的金子打的。店主按流程验了一遍,肉眼检查没问题,喷枪烧不变色,上秤重量也对得上。金价八百多一克,店主痛快付了钱。

当天下午,店里一个干了多年的老师傅觉得不对劲。他把项链剪开看横切面,质地毛糙,不像纯金该有的光滑液滴状断面。

报警后警方顺着资金流水查,发现这个团伙的交易记录遍布好几个省,被骗的金店不止一家。最后在安徽芜湖一间黄金加工作坊里,两个核心成员落网。据长兴警方披露,涉案总值超过 80 万元。

作坊里摆着高温熔化炉、模具、榔头,还有一种银白色的粉末。

这种粉末叫铼,元素周期表第 75 号。它有一个让整个黄金行业头疼的特点:

密度跟黄金几乎一样,熔点却是黄金的三倍。你拿火烧,烧不出来。你用秤称,称不出来。你上光谱仪测,据央视采访的广东南方黄金市场研究中心主任宋蒋圳的说法,铼和金的原子序数只差 4 个位置,在仪器上的信号高度重叠,普通测金仪直接把铼算成了金。

黄金行业沿用了几千年的验金办法,被一种金属粉末同时打穿了。

这事不只发生在长兴。据央视报道和各地公安通报,从 2024 年到现在,湖南湘潭、河南鹤壁、福建泉州、上海、重庆、浙江宁波都出过掺铼黄金的案子。泉州金银珠宝协会称已不时接到相关投诉,手法越来越隐蔽。

黄金现在一克一千多,铼粉在电商平台上几十块钱一克。价差摆在那里,检测又挡不住,自然有人动脑筋。

毕竟行情够好的东西,都有人山寨一下。

铼粉,易于生成难于验证

造假这门生意,门槛比想象中低得多。

泉州一个干了多年的回收店老板对媒体说,以前掺铼用的是小颗粒,混在金饰里多少还能看出点异样。现在铼粉磨得跟面粉一样细,跟金子高温熔在一起之后,表面完全分不出来。他自己被骗过不止一次。

造假用的原料和配方,已经不是什么秘密了。

央视记者在电商和二手交易平台上搜铼粉,出来的商品页面明目张胆。详情里直接标着「黄金掺铼」「过火过光谱」「黄金增重」,有卖家甚至写了配比,「与黄金 75 比 25 混合」。记者联系了其中一家,对方保证能以假乱真,掺 20%到 23%,市场上的光谱仪都测不出来。

商品页面上有个措辞笔者觉得很有意思,叫「黄金放大」。放大听起来,好像铼粉是某种杠杆工具。

这些铼粉什么价?有商家标高纯铼粉每克 29 元,也有专门标注「黄金掺配」的卖每克 150 元。据长兴案嫌疑人自述,他们的进货价大约每克 100 元。

那有没有技术手段能识破?有,但离普通金店很远。

据浙江绍兴市场监管局的检测经验,高精度进口光谱仪可以把铼和金的信号分开。另一种办法更彻底,把金饰熔成金水送去权威机构检测。但深圳水贝一位从业者对新京报说,水贝上百家检测机构里绝大多数用的是几万块的国产仪器,精度有限,而权威机构的破坏性检测不接个人送检。

能测出来的设备,普通金店买不起。买得起的设备,测不出来。

几千年来黄金的规矩是造起来难,验起来容易。一把火就能给出答案。铼粉把这个关系反过来了,造一块假金几个小时,验一块真金反而得送去实验室等上好几天。

难于验证,易于生成,有点反向比特币的感觉了。

金价高,造假忙

算一笔账就知道为什么这么多人铤而走险。

黄金回收价现在大约 1040 元一克。做一条 100 克的假足金项链,掺 20%的铼,需要 80 克真金和 20 克铼粉。80 克真金成本 83200 元,20 克铼粉按嫌疑人自述的进货价 100 元一克算,2000 元。总成本 85200 元,按足金卖出去是 104000 元。

一条项链,净赚将近两万。

这还是按回收价算的。据央视报道,有团伙专挑中小型回收店下手,这些店设备差、防范弱,收金流程基本靠火烧和手感。骗子还会配合表演,编一句「家里长辈传下来的」或者「打牌输了急用钱」,营造出急售的氛围,让店主放松警惕。

河南鹤壁的案子就是这么干的。据当地警方通报,两个人带着掺铼项链在一天之内连跑三家回收店,得手六万多元。第二家店还没反应过来,第三家店主察觉异常拒绝交易,骗子转身就走。从进店到离开,整个过程不超过半小时。

有利可图的不只是造假的人。铼粉的价格今年也在飞涨。

据澎湃新闻引用 Wind 数据,2025 年 6 月铼粉的日均价还在 1.8 万元一千克,到 7 月底就飙到了 3.3 万元。

一个月,涨了 83%。

铼本来是航空发动机里的高温合金材料,正经的工业用途。全球已探明储量只有 2400 吨左右,主要在智利、美国和俄罗斯,80%用于航空航天。但据澎湃新闻引用分析师的判断,这轮涨价背后有一部分是投机客和造假需求在推。

金价越高,铼的「非正规需求」就越旺盛,铼价跟着水涨船高。

一种本该在发动机里承受极端高温的金属,现在最赚钱的用途是掺进金项链里骗回收店老板。

山寨无处不在

我们对「山寨」这个词不陌生。

比特币的代码是开源的,改几个参数就能发一条新链,莱特币就是这么来的。成本几乎为零,但至少它有自己的名字,自己的价格,买的人知道自己买的是一个山寨币。

铼金也是山寨,只不过山寨的是元素周期表。

金的原子序数 79,铼是 75,差了 4 个位置,差出来的这 4 个数字恰好落在光谱仪的盲区里。拿铼粉和黄金按比例一熔,出来的东西在所有常规检测面前都自称足金。

但跟山寨币比,铼金多了一层恶意。

你买莱特币的时候知道它不是比特币,你拿 USDT 的时候知道它不是美元。铼金的买家没有这个机会,仪器告诉他这是真的,发票告诉他这是真的,甚至把项链剪开也未必看得出来。

山寨币好歹是明着山寨。铼金是山寨完了还把标签换成正品。

据知乎上一篇引用行业信源的分析,现行贵金属饰品检测标准里,压根没有铼的掺入上限,执法缺乏依据。铼是正经的工业材料,买卖合法,你不可能禁止一种航空发动机需要的金属在市场上流通。

金价还在涨,铼粉还在卖,光谱仪的盲区还在那。

很多人买金,图的就是一个踏实。不用开户,不用联网,放在家里几十年后拿出来还是值钱。但这个踏实有个前提,你得确定手里的东西是真的。

以前一把火就够了,现在你可能得把首饰熔成金水送去实验室才行。

如果验证一块黄金的成本和验证一笔链上转账一样麻烦,那「实物」这两个字还值多少信任,可能每个攒金的人都该重新算算了。

Пов'язані матеріали

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.

marsbit1 год тому

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

marsbit1 год тому

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.

marsbit1 год тому

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

marsbit1 год тому

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.

marsbit2 год тому

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

marsbit2 год тому

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.

marsbit3 год тому

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

marsbit3 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片