7 ms·
With the market cap beeing $360.000.000[0], and only 2% beeing in circulation, the value of the stolen tokens seems to be higher than the value of all coins in
by baraah 9y ago
With the market cap beeing $360.000.000[0], and only 2% beeing in circulation, the value of the stolen tokens seems to be higher than the value of all coins in circulation.
2% of $360,000,000 are $7,200,000 and the hacker stole more than eight million.
Or did I get this wrong somehow?
[0] https://coinmarketcap.com/assets/veritaseum/ https://coinmarketcap.com/assets/veritaseum/
- mkagenius 9y ago2% represent the $360M(market cap, in circulation). 100% is 50 times that, $18B (total supply), i.e. 100M tokens. What is stolen is 0.07% of 100M tokens which is 70K tokens, which is roughly $12M for current market price.
- ConfucianNardin 9y agoAccording to the founder, the amount of stolen tokens is 37k: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1887061.msg20355530#msg20355530 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1887061.msg20355530#... That number also matches the number transferred (36,687.9382688909) to this wallet mentioned in the article: https://etherscan.io/address/0x3fff90bf314673194c3a265ed1c0aa68f59550c4#tokentxns https://etherscan.io/address/0x3fff90bf314673194c3a265ed1c0a.... Also, according to two other articles (linked from the bitcointalk thread), cite the value of the stolen as US$4.5M, not US$8.4M: http://www.altcointoday.com/ethereum-ico-veritaseum-suffers-4-5-million-hack/ http://www.altcointoday.com/ethereum-ico-veritaseum-suffers-... http://www.newsbtc.com/2017/07/24/yet-another-ethereum-ico-gets-hacked-veritaseum-loses-us4-5m/ http://www.newsbtc.com/2017/07/24/yet-another-ethereum-ico-g... Checking market charts around the time it happened (~00-08 July 24th), there's a significant dip in value, with the price going as low as US$~122: https://coinmarketcap.com/assets/veritaseum/#charts https://coinmarketcap.com/assets/veritaseum/#charts. At that rate the stolen tokens would be worth US$4.48M.
- mkagenius 9y agoThen the 0.07% number was probably wrongly estimated by the founder, that number would be 0.037% then. He might have missed the 3 before 7. Anyway, that explains it.