Avi His

*️⃣5️⃣2️⃣9️⃣6️⃣8️⃣8️⃣7️⃣6️⃣0️⃣*️⃣
HOW YOU CAN GRATIFY AVI
To show support for Avi (△▽▯)(Avi His, UID: 529688760) and his tremendous Binance developments, it is very important that you gratify Avi for his handiwork, so that your support really counts into the future outcomes that might later or then add more to your profit. Flex yourself one up by consolidating your generosity towards the Binance community by choosing your best amount to pay Avi, and then confirming your intended transaction securely with Binance Pay.

Avi's Binance User ID is 529688760, and username is HIMAvinandan, in the situation you have to search for Avi. You can add him to chat, by sending a request (👇). You can search from the Binance Homepage by typing 'Avi His' (this is his nickname in use on Binance Square) in the searchbox.

If you don't already follow him yet, do click the FOLLOW or + button if you see it on Avi's Square, at your earliest chance.
1. POST, ARTICLES
You can transfer to Avi from of his posts. Click the $ icon below any of Avi's posts, and choose your payment amount. Confirm your transaction, and your payment would be into Avi's account in no time.

2. LIVE SESSION
In the live session that Avi is hosting, you can directly convey your presence by selecting the usual Binance Payment button depicted by a coin held at hand, between the chat message box and the $ button for related coins, and making your gratitude token substantial. Choose your amount and confirm your transfer, and you will have gratified Avi's creation.

3. CHAT
You can send crypto coins once you are chatting with Avi on Binance Chat. If you haven't already added Avi, just do so by going to Binance 'Chat' and inviting Avi, by searching by user ID ->'529688760', or Avi's Chat ID ->'ano3zq', and sending an invite. Once Avi has accepted your invite, and you're chatting together, i.e. through the chat, you can select the ⊕ (the plus in a circle icon, left of the chat message box) and select 'Send Crypto', confirm your transfer, and your sent crypto will reach Avi, and be shown on the chat.

4. BINANCE PAY
Of course you can directly send to Avi with Binance Pay! Select the Binance payment icon on the top right from the home-screen of the mobile application or search and go to 'Binance Pay' and select 'Send to Binance User'. In the search filter, select Binance User ID, and type in '529688760' (Avi's Binance UserID), and select your amount before confirming the transaction, and your payment will be made to Avi's Binance Account.

5. RED PACKET CAMPAIGN
Send your Red Packet Campaign only to Avi. From Binance Pay, select Pay Campaigns and go to the last filter, 'Send Campaign'. Enter Avi's User ID, 529688760, and send over your Campaign and enjoy your return reward. You are sure to get back more than you send.

There are many more ways, and we are overmore constantly developing newer ways to improve the Binance experience further.

Newer vagueness in the form of automation cons have been constantly being discovered:
#Avi #Neutralisation #FalseAutomation #Con #Attack
The Automation Abyss: How Vague Exploits Are Redefining Crypto's Risk Landscape in 2025
In the ever-evolving world of blockchain and decentralized finance (DeFi), automation isn't just a feature—it's the foundation. Smart contracts execute trades, liquidations, and arbitrages with ruthless efficiency, free from human error or oversight. But this permissionless utopia harbors a dark underbelly: "horrifically vague" automation cons, where subtle code flaws or algorithmic manipulations drain billions in seconds. As blockchains operate as unyielding public machines, every new exploit discovered in broader automation systems serves as a harbinger for crypto's next catastrophe. With no central authority to hit pause, these incidents aren't mere glitches—they're irrevocable heists.
This article delves into the mechanics of these risks, armed with 2025's stark statistics on losses and a rundown of judicial reckonings that are finally catching up to the code. From North Korean hackers siphoning exchange fortunes to regulators wrestling with smart contract accountability, the year has exposed crypto's extreme sport of finance: blistering innovation laced with existential peril.
The Machinery of Mayhem: Automation's Double-Edged Sword in Crypto
At its core, cryptocurrency thrives on automation. Ethereum's smart contracts, for instance, are self-executing code that automates everything from lending protocols to non-fungible token (NFT) mints. Bots scour mempools for maximum extractable value (MEV), front-running trades and liquidating overleveraged positions faster than any human could. Bridges connect chains, oracles feed price data, and decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) govern via on-chain votes—all humming 24/7 without a safety net.
Yet, this opacity breeds vagueness. A "con" here isn't always malice; it's often an edge case in code that auditors missed. Flash-loan attacks borrow millions in a single transaction to manipulate prices, repay the loan, and pocket the difference—all before the block finalizes. Sandwich bots encase user trades, buying low and selling high at the victim's expense. Oracle manipulations skew data, triggering cascading liquidations. And infinite mint bugs? They've conjured tokens from thin air, flooding markets overnight.
The horror lies in the irrevocability. Unlike traditional finance, where a regulator might freeze assets or rewind trades, blockchain's finality means losses are etched in stone. Ethereum's infamous DAO hack in 2016 led to a hard fork that splintered the community, but today, with trillions in total value locked (TVL), such drama could shatter global trust. As AI agents now autonomously hunt vulnerabilities—uncovering exploits worth $4.6 million in simulated thefts—the arms race intensifies, turning vague code whispers into deafening explosions.
A Year of Reckoning: 2025's Statistical Toll on Crypto Automation
If 2024 was a warning shot, 2025 has been an onslaught. Chainalysis's mid-year report paints a grim picture: over $2.17 billion stolen from crypto services in the first half alone, surpassing all of 2024 and projecting a full-year total exceeding $4 billion. This surge, up 17% from mid-2022 trends, underscores automation's fragility, with off-chain compromises (like account takeovers) claiming 56.5% of attacks and a staggering 80.5% of funds lost.
The crown jewel of calamity? February's ByBit hack, where North Korea's Lazarus Group pilfered $1.5 billion from a cold wallet—the largest single crypto theft ever, dwarfing the 2022 Ronin breach. Attributed to state-sponsored actors, it exploited a validation flaw in bridging contracts, laundering proceeds through decentralized exchanges (DEXs) and over-the-counter brokers. By October, cumulative losses hit $2.3 billion across platforms like Coinbase and Cetus, with cross-chain bridges and vaults remaining prime targets due to logic bugs and private key thefts.
DeFi bore the brunt: Halborn's Top 100 Hacks report tallies $10.77 billion lost from 2014–2024, but 2025's pace suggests a new record. Ethereum, Binance Smart Chain (BSC), and Polygon topped the hit list, with compromised accounts fueling 47% of losses. Phishing spiked 40%, luring users into fake exchanges, while AI deepfakes amplified social engineering scams. Personal wallet drains, now 23% of thefts, highlight retail vulnerability—$1.71 billion vanished across 344 incidents in H1.
Cryptocrime's shadow economy? At least $28 billion in illicit funds flooded exchanges over the past two years, per investigative journalists, with scams alone projected to cost $30 billion annually by year's end. These aren't isolated; they're systemic symptoms of unchecked automation, where one vague oracle feed can cascade into market-wide panic.
Courts and Code: Judicial Updates Grappling with Automation's Ghosts
As exploits multiply, so do lawsuits. 2025's dockets brim with cases probing smart contracts' legal teeth—enforceability, liability, and the ghost in the machine. Courts are no longer dismissing blockchain disputes as sci-fi; they're forging precedents that could tether code to cuffs.
Take Do Kwon, Terraform Labs' founder, sentenced to 15 years in December for a $40 billion fraud scheme collapsing TerraUSD and Luna via manipulative automation. Pleading guilty to commodities, securities, and wire fraud, Kwon's saga—once a poster child for algorithmic stablecoins—affirms that "move fast and break things" has limits when billions evaporate.
In DeFi's trenches, Roman Storm's Tornado Cash trial yielded a mixed verdict: guilty on unlicensed money transmission but a hung jury on laundering and sanctions charges. The case, rooted in smart contracts mixing illicit funds (including $600 million from Lazarus), spotlighted decentralization's double bind. The Fifth Circuit overturned OFAC sanctions in 2024, deeming immutable code non-"property," but Storm's conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1960(b)(1)(C) signals prosecutors' pivot: intent matters, but exploiting known criminal flows doesn't fly.
Securities suits dominate. The Second Circuit's Risley v. Universal Navigation and Underwood v. Coinbase rulings hinge on "centralization": exchanges intermediating trades face unregistered securities liability, while pure smart contract facilitators might skate free. Ripple's ongoing saga, with institutional XRP sales under the Howey test, faces Second Circuit review, potentially clarifying token classifications. Meanwhile, Avraham Eisenberg's Mango Markets conviction for DeFi manipulation—$110 million via perpetual contracts—tested jurisdictional bounds, affirming algorithmic trading as prosecutable fraud.
Class actions surged: Coinbase's arbitration clauses held firm in Carolus and Cordero, but Houghton v. Polychain and Samuels v. Lido DAO nixed estoppel claims, waiving arbitration for tardy filers. Lido's DAO faced entity status scrutiny, blurring code and corporate veils—human governance invites liability, even in "autonomous" setups.
Offensively, industry pushes back. Blockchain Association v. IRS challenges broker rules burdening DeFi intermediaries, arguing smart contracts evade administrative overreach. Bitnomial Exchange v. SEC and Kentucky v. SEC seek clarity on custody and exemptions, eyeing Trump-era deregulation.
Regulations Racing the Code: Taming Automation's Wild Frontier
Policymakers aren't idle. The EU's MiCA stabilized crypto-asset service providers (CASPs), but DORA's January rollout mandates ICT resilience for DeFi, targeting cyber risks in automated protocols. Yet, DeFi TVL dipped 10.8% in Q1 as 40% of EU traders fled to offshore havens like Switzerland, decrying stifled innovation.
In the U.S., the CLARITY Act delineates "mature blockchains" for commodity trading, easing secondary markets post-securities phase. SEC-CFTC harmony via joint statements promises safe harbors for DeFi, portfolio margining, and onshoring perpetuals—provided investor safeguards hold. Illinois's Digital Assets Act imposes kiosk regs and AML akin to tradfi, while Citadel urges SEC scrutiny on tokenized equities to avert "two rulebooks."
Globally, FATF's Travel Rule covers 99 jurisdictions, but stablecoins now dominate illicit flows. Coordinated warnings from U.S., South Korea, and Japan highlight DPRK thefts topping $600 million in 2024, fueling cross-border pacts.
AI's role? It's both boon and bane—enhancing compliance via automated AML but arming hackers with exploit-hunting agents.
Navigating the Nexus: Toward Safer Automation
These stats and suits reveal a pivot: from reactive forks to proactive audits. Tools like formal verification and AI-driven fuzzing promise fewer vague cons, but true resilience demands hybrid governance—code with circuit breakers, oracles with multi-sig failsafes.
For users, it's vigilance: hardware wallets, multi-factor auth, and skepticism of yields. Developers? Embed disclosures; regulators, foster sandboxes. As 2025 closes with $4 billion in red ink, crypto's lesson is clear: automation's efficiency is intoxicating, but without guardrails, it's a siren's call to ruin.
The blockchain dream endures—not despite these horrors, but because confronting them forges antifragility. In this arena, breaking things isn't fatal; ignoring the breaks is.
Notorious Hackers and Groups in Crypto History
Crypto's decentralized nature has attracted sophisticated attackers, from state-sponsored groups to individual exploiters. Below is a list of some of the most famed (or defamed) culprits and usual suspects behind major hacks, exploits, and thefts, focusing on those with confirmed attributions or high-profile cases. Many remain anonymous, but attributions often come from blockchain analytics firms like Chainalysis, Elliptic, or law enforcement.
State-Sponsored or Organized Groups
- Lazarus Group (North Korea-linked)
Widely regarded as crypto's most prolific and dangerous threat actor. Attributed to multiple record-breaking heists, including:
- Bybit hack (February 2025): ~$1.5 billion in Ethereum – the largest single crypto theft ever.
- Ronin Network/Axie Infinity (2022): ~$625 million.
- Other major incidents: Upbit (2025, ~$36 million), Stake.com, CoinsPaid, and more.
Total attributed thefts exceed $5–6 billion since 2017, often funding North Korea's regime. Known for advanced phishing, malware, and supply-chain attacks.
- TraderTraitor (North Korea-linked subgroup)
A specialized unit under Lazarus umbrella, focused on crypto firms via fake job offers and malware. Linked to exploits like DMM Bitcoin (2024).
Individual or Known Exploiters
- Do Kwon (Terraform Labs founder)
Not a traditional hacker, but defamed for fraud leading to the 2022 Terra/Luna collapse (~$40–50 billion wiped out). Sentenced to **15 years in prison** in December 2025 for conspiracy and wire fraud after pleading guilty.
- Avraham Eisenberg
Exploited Mango Markets (2022) for ~$110 million via oracle price manipulation on perpetual futures. Initially convicted of commodities fraud, manipulation, and wire fraud (2024), but all convictions overturned in May 2025 by a U.S. district judge due to venue issues and insufficient evidence of fraud (code had no explicit rules against the tactic).
- Poly Network Hacker (2021, anonymous)
Stole ~$610 million in a cross-chain exploit, then returned nearly all funds, claiming it was "for fun" and to expose vulnerabilities. Labeled a "white hat" by Poly Network (controversially), but identity never revealed.
Other Notable or Historical Mentions
- The Poly Network returner stands out as a rare case of full restitution, contrasting with irreversible losses in most hacks.
- Many exploits (e.g., Wormhole 2022 ~$320M, Nomad Bridge ~$190M) remain unattributed to specific individuals, often involving flash loans or bridge vulnerabilities.
- Earlier non-crypto-specific but influential: Figures like Kevin Mitnick (social engineering pioneer) inspired modern phishing tactics used in crypto breaches.
These cases highlight crypto's vulnerabilities: bridges, oracles, private keys, and governance. While some like Eisenberg pushed legal boundaries (and won reversals), groups like Lazarus continue unchecked, driving billions in losses annually. Recovery is rare without white-hat intervention or seizures.
Lazarus Group: Preying North Korea's Shadowy Cyber Arsenal and the Crypto Heist Empire
The Lazarus Group, a notorious state-sponsored hacking collective at North Korea's Reconnaissance General Bureau, has evolved from disruptive cyber saboteurs into the world's most prolific digital thieves. Active since at least 2009, the group—also known by aliases like APT38, Hidden Cobra, and Stardust Chollima—has been implicated in a cascade of high-profile attacks that blend geopolitical espionage, ransomware chaos, and audacious financial crimes. By December 2025, Lazarus's crypto-focused operations alone have siphoned over $6 billion in digital assets since 2017, funding North Korea's weapons programs amid crippling international sanctions. Their exploits underscore the fragility of global cybersecurity, with blockchain's transparency ironically aiding both theft and attribution.
This profile chronicles Lazarus's trajectory through verified news reports and public discussions, highlighting key incidents, tactics, and the escalating stakes in 2025.
Origins and Early Operations: From DDoS to Hollywood Havoc
Lazarus first surfaced in public scrutiny during "Operation Troy" in July 2009, launching unsophisticated DDoS attacks against South Korean government and media websites using Mydoom and Dozer malware. These strikes, tied to North Korean IP addresses, aimed to disrupt amid escalating tensions over nuclear tests. By March 2011, the group escalated with "Ten Days of Rain," a more refined DDoS campaign targeting South Korean financial and critical infrastructure from compromised domestic machines.
The group's international notoriety peaked in November 2014 with the Sony Pictures breach. Hackers, self-identifying as "Guardians of Peace," infiltrated the studio's network, stealing terabytes of data—including unreleased films, executive emails, and employee records—before leaking it online. The attack was retaliation for the film *The Interview*, a comedy depicting Kim Jong-un's assassination, destroying 70% of Sony's computers with wiper malware. U.S. officials swiftly attributed it to Lazarus, marking the group's shift toward high-impact, politically motivated disruptions.
In 2016, Lazarus orchestrated the Bangladesh Bank heist, attempting to steal $1 billion from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York via SWIFT network intrusions. They succeeded in transferring $101 million to accounts in the Philippines and Sri Lanka, though much was frozen or recovered. This operation showcased their financial sophistication, blending malware like custom Trojans with insider-like access.
The 2017 WannaCry ransomware outbreak infected over 200,000 systems in 150 countries, exploiting the EternalBlue vulnerability (stolen from the NSA) to demand Bitcoin ransoms totaling $4 billion in damages. While Kaspersky noted code overlaps with Lazarus tools, attribution debates persisted due to potential false flags. Nonetheless, the FBI and cybersecurity firms like Symantec linked it to the group, cementing Lazarus's reputation for global disruption.
Pivot to Crypto: Billions in Blockchain Blood Money
Post-2017, Lazarus zeroed in on cryptocurrency as a sanctions-busting lifeline. North Korea, facing UN bans, reportedly relies on these thefts for up to 13% of its GDP, fueling nuclear and missile development. Early crypto hits included the 2017 Bithumb exchange breach ($7 million via spear-phishing) and the 2019 Upbit hack ($36 million, mirroring Lazarus signatures).
The 2022 Ronin Bridge exploit—draining $625 million from Axie Infinity's cross-chain protocol—marked a DeFi turning point. Attackers compromised validator nodes via social engineering on LinkedIn, forging signatures to approve withdrawals. That June, Harmony Horizon Bridge lost $100 million through multisig private key thefts. The FBI sanctioned Lazarus in April 2022, citing these as regime-backed revenue streams.
2023 saw a frenzy: Atomic Wallet ($100 million via malware), CoinsPaid ($37 million through social engineering), Alphapo ($60 million), Stake.com ($41 million exploiting key flaws), and CoinEx ($70 million, funds mixed with Stake proceeds). Elliptic tracked Lazarus consolidating hauls across blockchains, using bridges and mixers like Tornado Cash (sanctioned in 2022 for laundering $7.6 billion).
In 2024, DMM Bitcoin fell to a $308 million hot wallet attack. Chainalysis reported $1.3 billion stolen that year across 47 incidents.
2025: Record-Breaking Rampage and Evolving Shadows
By mid-2025, Lazarus thefts topped $2 billion, outpacing prior years and targeting high-net-worth individuals alongside exchanges. The February 21 Bybit hack—the largest ever at $1.5 billion in Ethereum—exploited Safe Wallet vulnerabilities via phishing and UI manipulation on developer machines. The FBI dubbed it "TraderTraitor," noting rapid laundering to Bitcoin across thousands of addresses. Discussions on X highlighted swaps via Chainflip, THORChain, and eXch (which refused Bybit cooperation), plus memecoin launches on Pump.fun for obfuscation.
November's Upbit breach ($30 million) echoed the 2019 attack, with South Korean officials suspecting Lazarus based on laundering tactics. Earlier, in spring, they targeted European drone firms with fake job offers for data theft. September's Seedify incident tied back to Lazarus via $4.8 billion in historical thefts.
X chatter in 2025 emphasized Lazarus's patience—holding funds for years before laundering—and their unyielding stance: no negotiations, no returns. A Reuters exposé revealed fake U.S. firms in New York and New Mexico to deploy malware against crypto devs. ANY.RUN's sandbox sting captured operatives' faces and screens in real-time IT infiltration ops.
Tactics: Social Engineering Meets Malware Mastery
Lazarus operates like a cyber military: ~1,700 hackers trained in computer science, divided into units like Bluenoroff for finance.
Core playbook:
- Social Engineering: Fake LinkedIn jobs, spear-phishing (e.g., Bithumb 2017), or impersonating IT workers to infiltrate firms.
- Malware Arsenal: Custom tools like AppleJeus (macOS backdoor), WannaCry variants, and cross-platform RATs (PondRAT, ThemeForestRAT). They exploit zero-days, supply chains (Bybit's Safe Wallet), and multisig flaws.
- Laundering: Bridge to mixers, DEX swaps (eXch, LiFi), memecoins, and OTC brokers; $160 million from Bybit laundered in 48 hours.
Infrastructure fingerprints—like JARM hashes and Namecheap domains—aid tracking.
Global Reckoning: Sanctions, Seizures, and the Crypto Arms Race
U.S. responses include OFAC sanctions (2022 onward), FBI attributions, and $7.7 million seizures from IT worker schemes. The Bybit hack spurred Trump-era executive orders for a U.S. Bitcoin reserve, amid market dips (Bitcoin fell 20%).
Yet, recoveries are rare—Chainalysis notes zero full returns. Elliptic and ESET urge AI-driven monitoring and sandbox traps.
As 2025 closes, Lazarus embodies crypto's dual edge: innovation enabling theft at scale. Their unbroken streak—fueled by patience and precision—demands a unified global counteroffensive, lest the next heist eclipse Bybit's shadow.