The post Clawdbot Chaos: A Forced Rebrand, Crypto Scam and 24-Hour Meltdown appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. In brief A trademark dispute sparked the chaoticThe post Clawdbot Chaos: A Forced Rebrand, Crypto Scam and 24-Hour Meltdown appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. In brief A trademark dispute sparked the chaotic

Clawdbot Chaos: A Forced Rebrand, Crypto Scam and 24-Hour Meltdown

In brief

  • A trademark dispute sparked the chaotic rebrand and account hijacking of the viral AI app, Clawdbot.
  • In minutes, the unaffiliated CLAWD token surged to a $16 million market cap before collapsing.
  • Security researchers uncover exposed Clawdbot instances and credential risks.

A few days ago, Clawdbot was one of GitHub’s hottest open-source projects, boasting more than 80,000 stars. It’s an impressive piece of engineering that lets you run an AI assistant locally with full system access through messaging apps like WhatsApp, Telegram, and Discord.

Today, it’s been forced into a legal rebrand, overrun by crypto scammers, linked to a fake token that briefly hit a $16 million market cap before collapsing, and criticized by researchers who found exposed gateways and accessible credentials.

The reckoning started after Anthropic sent founder Peter Steinberger a trademark claim. The AI company—whose Claude models power many Clawdbot installations—decided that “Clawd” looked too much like “Claude.” Fair enough. Trademark law is trademark law.

That, however, triggered a variety of problems that soon cascaded.

Steinberger announced the rebrand from Clawdbot—the name was a play on lobsters, apparent (don’t ask)—to Moltbot on X. The community seemed fine with it. “Same lobster soul, new shell,” the project’s account wrote.

Next, Steinberger renamed the GitHub organization and the X account simultaneously. But in the short gap between releasing the old handles and securing the new ones, crypto scammers hijacked both accounts.

The hacked accounts immediately started pumping a fake token called CLAWD on Solana. Within hours, speculative traders drove the token to over $16 million in market capitalization.

Some early buyers claimed massive gains. Steinberger denied any involvement with the token. The capitalization collapsed and late buyers got wrecked.

“To all crypto folks: Please stop pinging me, stop harassing me,” Steinberger wrote. “I will never do a coin. Any project that lists me as coin owner is a SCAM. No, I will not accept fees. You are actively damaging the project.”

The crypto crowd didn’t take the rejection well. Some speculators believed Steinberger’s denial caused their losses and launched harassment campaigns. He faced accusations of betrayal, demands that he “take responsibility,” and coordinated pressure to endorse projects he’d never heard of.

Steinberger was ultimately able to gain control of the accounts. But in the meantime, security researchers decided this was a good time to point out that hundreds of Clawdbot instances were exposed to the public internet with zero authentication. In other words, users would give unsupervised permissions to the AI that could easily be exploited by bad guys.

As reported by Decrypt, AI developer Luis Catacora ran Shodan scans and found a lot of problems were caused basically by novice users giving the agent too many permissions. “I just checked Shodan and there are exposed gateways on port 18789 with zero auth,” he wrote. “That’s shell access, browser automation, your API keys. Cloudflare Tunnel is free, there’s no excuse.”

Jamieson O’Reilly, founder of red-teaming company Dvuln, also found it was very easy to identify vulnerable servers. “Of the instances I’ve examined manually, eight were open with no authentication at all,” O’Reilly told The Register. Dozens more had partial protections that didn’t fully eliminate exposure.

The technical problem? Clawdbot’s authentication system automatically approves localhost connections—that is, connections to your own machine. When users run the software behind a reverse proxy, which most do, all connections appear to come from 127.0.0.1 and get automatically authorized, even when they originate externally.

Blockchain security firm SlowMist confirmed the vulnerability and warned that multiple code flaws could lead to credential theft and remote code execution. Researchers have demonstrated different prompt injection attacks, including one via email that tricked an AI instance into forwarding private messages to an attacker. It took mere minutes.

“This is what happens when viral growth hits before security audit,” FounderOS developer Abdulmuiz Adeyemo wrote. “‘Build in public’ has a dark side nobody talks about.”

The good news for AI hobbyists and devs that the project itself hasn’t died. Moltbot is the same software Clawdbot was; the code is solid and, despite the hype, not especially noob-friendly. The use cases are real, but still not ready for mainstream adoption. And the security issues remain.

Running an autonomous AI agent with shell access, browser control, and credential management creates attack surfaces that traditional security models weren’t designed for. The economics of these systems—local deployment, persistent memory, and proactive tasks—drive adoption faster than the industry’s security posture can adapt.

And the crypto scammers are still out there, watching for the next chaos window. All it takes is one oversight, one mistake, or one gap. Ten seconds, as it turns out, is plenty.

Daily Debrief Newsletter

Start every day with the top news stories right now, plus original features, a podcast, videos and more.

Source: https://decrypt.co/356191/clawdbot-chaos-forced-rebrand-crypto-scam-24-hour-meltdown

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.
Tags:

You May Also Like

HitPaw API is Integrated by Comfy for Professional Image and Video Enhancement to Global Creators

HitPaw API is Integrated by Comfy for Professional Image and Video Enhancement to Global Creators

SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 7, 2026 /PRNewswire/ — HitPaw, a leader in AI-powered visual enhancement solutions, announced Comfy, a global content creation platform, is
Share
AI Journal2026/02/08 09:15
Journalist gives brutal review of Melania movie: 'Not a single person in the theater'

Journalist gives brutal review of Melania movie: 'Not a single person in the theater'

A Journalist gave a brutal review of the new Melania documentary, which has been criticized by those who say it won't make back the huge fees spent to make it,
Share
Rawstory2026/02/08 09:08
Facts Vs. Hype: Analyst Examines XRP Supply Shock Theory

Facts Vs. Hype: Analyst Examines XRP Supply Shock Theory

Prominent analyst Cheeky Crypto (203,000 followers on YouTube) set out to verify a fast-spreading claim that XRP’s circulating supply could “vanish overnight,” and his conclusion is more nuanced than the headline suggests: nothing in the ledger disappears, but the amount of XRP that is truly liquid could be far smaller than most dashboards imply—small enough, in his view, to set the stage for an abrupt liquidity squeeze if demand spikes. XRP Supply Shock? The video opens with the host acknowledging his own skepticism—“I woke up to a rumor that XRP supply could vanish overnight. Sounds crazy, right?”—before committing to test the thesis rather than dismiss it. He frames the exercise as an attempt to reconcile a long-standing critique (“XRP’s supply is too large for high prices”) with a rival view taking hold among prominent community voices: that much of the supply counted as “circulating” is effectively unavailable to trade. His first step is a straightforward data check. Pulling public figures, he finds CoinMarketCap showing roughly 59.6 billion XRP as circulating, while XRPScan reports about 64.7 billion. The divergence prompts what becomes the video’s key methodological point: different sources count “circulating” differently. Related Reading: Analyst Sounds Major XRP Warning: Last Chance To Get In As Accumulation Balloons As he explains it, the higher on-ledger number likely includes balances that aggregators exclude or treat as restricted, most notably Ripple’s programmatic escrow. He highlights that Ripple still “holds a chunk of XRP in escrow, about 35.3 billion XRP locked up across multiple wallets, with a nominal schedule of up to 1 billion released per month and unused portions commonly re-escrowed. Those coins exist and are accounted for on-ledger, but “they aren’t actually sitting on exchanges” and are not immediately available to buyers. In his words, “for all intents and purposes, that escrow stash is effectively off of the market.” From there, the analysis moves from headline “circulating supply” to the subtler concept of effective float. Beyond escrow, he argues that large strategic holders—banks, fintechs, or other whales—may sit on material balances without supplying order books. When you strip out escrow and these non-selling stashes, he says, “the effective circulating supply… is actually way smaller than the 59 or even 64 billion figure.” He cites community estimates in the “20 or 30 billion” range for what might be truly liquid at any given moment, while emphasizing that nobody has a precise number. That effective-float framing underpins the crux of his thesis: a potential supply shock if demand accelerates faster than fresh sell-side supply appears. “Price is a dance between supply and demand,” he says; if institutional or sovereign-scale users suddenly need XRP and “the market finds that there isn’t enough XRP readily available,” order books could thin out and prices could “shoot on up, sometimes violently.” His phrase “circulating supply could collapse overnight” is presented not as a claim that tokens are destroyed or removed from the ledger, but as a market-structure scenario in which available inventory to sell dries up quickly because holders won’t part with it. How Could The XRP Supply Shock Happen? On the demand side, he anchors the hypothetical to tokenization. He points to the “very early stages of something huge in finance”—on-chain tokenization of debt, stablecoins, CBDCs and even gold—and argues the XRP Ledger aims to be “the settlement layer” for those assets.He references Ripple CTO David Schwartz’s earlier comments about an XRPL pivot toward tokenized assets and notes that an institutional research shop (Bitwise) has framed XRP as a way to play the tokenization theme. In his construction, if “trillions of dollars in value” begin settling across XRPL rails, working inventories of XRP for bridging, liquidity and settlement could rise sharply, tightening effective float. Related Reading: XRP Bearish Signal: Whales Offload $486 Million In Asset To illustrate, he offers two analogies. First, the “concert tickets” model: you think there are 100,000 tickets (100B supply), but 50,000 are held by the promoter (escrow) and 30,000 by corporate buyers (whales), leaving only 20,000 for the public; if a million people want in, prices explode. Second, a comparison to Bitcoin’s halving: while XRP has no programmatic halving, he proposes that a sudden adoption wave could function like a de facto halving of available supply—“XRP’s version of a halving could actually be the adoption event.” He also updates the narrative context that long dogged XRP. Once derided for “too much supply,” he argues the script has “totally flipped.” He cites the current cycle’s optics—“XRP is sitting above $3 with a market cap north of around $180 billion”—as evidence that raw supply counts did not cap price as tightly as critics claimed, and as a backdrop for why a scarcity narrative is gaining traction. Still, he declines to publish targets or timelines, repeatedly stressing uncertainty and risk. “I’m not a financial adviser… cryptocurrencies are highly volatile,” he reminds viewers, adding that tokenization could take off “on some other platform,” unfold more slowly than enthusiasts expect, or fail to get to “sudden shock” scale. The verdict he offers is deliberately bound. The theory that “XRP supply could vanish overnight” is imprecise on its face; the ledger will not erase coins. But after examining dashboard methodologies, escrow mechanics and the behavior of large holders, he concludes that the effective float could be meaningfully smaller than headline supply figures, and that a fast-developing tokenization use case could, under the right conditions, stress that float. “Overnight is a dramatic way to put it,” he concedes. “The change could actually be very sudden when it comes.” At press time, XRP traded at $3.0198. Featured image created with DALL.E, chart from TradingView.com
Share
NewsBTC2025/09/18 11:00