On-chain investigator Specter said the incident now appears more likely to have been an internal operation, based on permission history tied to the address that moved the tokens. According to Specter’s monitoring, the address responsible for the transfer had held the required role since 2025. That role was revoked only after the tokens had already been moved.
The timing is central to Specter’s assessment. Rather than suggesting an access right granted immediately before the transfer, the monitoring points to an address that had already been authorized well in advance. Specter’s latest observation does not add further details on the project involved, the amount of tokens moved, or any follow-up action beyond the role revocation after the outflow.
Odaily reported that on-chain investigator Specter said the incident is now more likely to have been an internal operation.
According to Specter’s monitoring, the address that transferred the tokens had been granted the required role since 2025. That role was revoked only after the tokens were moved.
This article was originally published by Bit.Fan. For more cryptocurrency news and market insights, visit www.bit.fan. Disclaimer:
The market information, project data, and third-party content displayed on this platform are for industry information sharing only and do not constitute any form of investment advice or return commitment.
Cryptocurrency trading carries high risks. Users should fully assess their risk tolerance and make independent decisions. All profits, losses, and legal responsibilities are borne by the users themselves.
