The same attacker, after consecutively targeting Fetch.ai and NuNet, breached SingularityNET again, illegally minting 260 million AGIX tokens via a cross-chain bridge. The hacker still holds over $16 million in assets, highlighting cross-chain bridge security risks in AI projects.
The same attacker, after consecutively targeting Fetch.ai and NuNet, has once again breached SingularityNET, resulting in the illegal minting of 260 million AGIX tokens. According to currently disclosed information, the attacker still holds over $16 million in assets. The incident involves multiple AI-related projects, with attacks directed at cross-chain bridges, making it one of the more widely impactful security events in the crypto industry recently. It has once again brought the security issues of AI projects and cross-chain infrastructure to the forefront.
The attack path extended from Fetch.ai and NuNet to SingularityNET. By sequence of events, the attacker did not target a single project. Sources indicate the same attacker first struck Fetch.ai and NuNet before turning to SingularityNET. This pattern of serial attacks suggests the incident is not an isolated single-point vulnerability but a chain of security events centered on cross-chain bridges across multiple AI projects. For the market, the growing number of affected projects extends risk from individual tokens to the security of cross-chain assets across the AI sector. The illegal minting of 260 million AGIX in this SingularityNET case is substantial in scale, directly impacting token supply and holder expectations. The fact that the attacker still holds over $16 million in assets also indicates risks have not been fully resolved, making subsequent asset tracing and disposal critical.
The illegal minting of 260 million AGIX exposes cross-chain bridge risks. The core fact of the SingularityNET breach is the illegal minting of 260 million AGIX tokens. Unlike ordinary theft, illegal minting directly affects token circulation and ledger records, potentially triggering ripple effects on the project ecosystem, exchanges, and holders. Sources describe the attack targets as cross-chain bridges of multiple AI projects, a detail indicating that cross-chain bridges remain a key focus for attackers. Cross-chain bridges connect assets and contracts across different chains; once verification, signing, or minting permissions are compromised, attackers can generate assets at low cost and transfer funds. For AI projects, tokens serve both ecological incentive functions and may be tied to network services, data markets, or agent economies. As such, the impact of a security incident extends beyond price levels to project reputation, developer confidence, and partner risk controls. The illegal minting of 260 million AGIX means relevant parties need to assess impacts on total token supply, circulating supply, and potential sell pressure, though existing disclosures have yet to reveal more detailed remediation outcomes, leaving the market to gauge risk based on known facts.
The same hacker acting consecutively underscores an industry-wide warning. The same attacker targeting Fetch.ai, NuNet, and SingularityNET in succession lends the incident clear continuity and deliberate targeting. For the crypto industry, this is not merely a security incident involving a single project, but a stress test of security capabilities across the AI sector. AI projects have drawn significant market attention in recent years, with their tokens and cross-chain assets often linked to multiple ecosystems. Once attackers find a breakthrough, they can replicate their methods against more similar targets. Sources note the hacker still holds over $16 million in assets, indicating the attacker has gained substantial control over funds. Whether they continue to transfer, mix, or cash out will directly affect the difficulty of asset recovery and freezing. Meanwhile, consecutive attacks on multiple projects may prompt exchanges, wallet providers, and cross-chain bridge operators to step up risk screening. For users, this incident is another reminder that cross-chain interactions and AI project assets are not risk-free, and asset security must take precedence over expected returns.
User asset security and cross-chain bridge trust face serious tests. In the crypto market, cross-chain bridges have long been vital channels for asset movement, yet they are also a frequent site of security incidents. In this case, the attacker exploited cross-chain bridge-related vectors to target multiple AI projects and achieved the illegal minting of 260 million AGIX, demonstrating that once cross-chain bridge security fails, the impact quickly spreads to token economics and user assets. For SingularityNET, after the illegal minting of 260 million AGIX, the market will focus on how the project handles the newly minted tokens, how it communicates with exchanges and the community, and how it restores trust in the cross-chain bridge. For Fetch.ai and NuNet, while specific loss details have not been disclosed, the fact that the same attacker struck consecutively is sufficient to raise market concerns over the security of related cross-chain components. More broadly, AI-sector projects pursuing cross-chain interoperability and ecosystem expansion need to prioritize security audits, permission management, and anomaly monitoring. Otherwise, a single vulnerability could escalate into a multi-project cascade, damaging the credibility of the entire sector.
Key areas to monitor going forward. Current information shows the core facts include: the same attacker consecutively attacked Fetch.ai and NuNet, and again breached SingularityNET; 260 million AGIX was illegally minted; and the hacker still holds over $16 million in assets. Areas worth monitoring include whether affected projects disclose further asset tracing and disposal progress; whether illegally minted AGIX flows into trading platforms or secondary markets; whether cross-chain bridge permissions and contracts are repaired; and whether regulatory or enforcement authorities step in. For industry participants, this incident once again demonstrates that cross-chain bridge security and token minting permissions are infrastructural risks that crypto projects cannot afford to ignore. The market must assess the impact based on facts and avoid reducing a security incident to mere short-term volatility. This article is compiled solely from disclosed information and does not constitute investment advice.
.jpg)
