AmplyFi.Money Exit Scam
Notice: This page is a freshly imported case study from the original repository. The original content was in a different format, and may not have relevant information for all sections. Please help restructure the content by moving information from the 'About' and 'General Prevention' sections to other sections, and add any missing information or sources you can find. If you are new here, please read General Tutorial on Wikis or Anatomy of a Case Study for help getting started.
Notice: This page contains sources which are not attributed to any text. The unattributed sources follow the initial description. Please assist by visiting each source, reviewing the content, and placing that reference next to any text it can be used to support. Feel free to add any information that you come across which isn't present already. Sources which don't contain any relevant information can be removed. Broken links can be replaced with versions from the Internet Archive. See General Tutorial on Wikis, Anatomy of a Case Study, and/or Citing Your Sources Guide for additional information. Thanks for your help!
AmplyFi was a copy of the well-known AmpleForth protocol, and gained some investment. The project team was anonymous and apparently one of the team members ran away with the funds.
This is a global/international case not involving a specific country.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]
About AmplyFi.Money
The "AmplYfi project [was an] Ample[fo]rth fork." "The Ampleforth protocol translates price-volatility into supply-volatility. This means the number of AMPL tokens in user wallets automatically increases or decreases based on price. These supply adjustments are called "Rebases" and rebases occur once each day. When the AMPL network grows you'll automatically have more tokens, when the AMPL network shrinks you'll automatically have fewer tokens, but the price per AMPL will tend to cycle around $1. This novel rebasing mechanism is what allows AMPL to be used in contracts."
"Amplyfi.money made headlines in the sector after collecting 2,500 ETH from investors and then magically disappearing into thin air."
The project "[r]ug pulled after collecting 2,500 ETH from investors. According to a message left on the website, the Amplyfi.money team claim that “one of the devs compromised wallet and was able to use a little-known vulnerability in the compiler itself.” It adds that “devs are receiving a fair amount of threats, so we decided to terminate the project.”"
"AMPLYFI contract was hacked." "Apparently one of the devs compromised wallet and was able to use a little-known vulnerability in compiler itself." "Devs are receiving a fair amount of threats so we decided to terminate the project"
"According to the telegram channel Drops Daily, project gathered during a private sale of 2500 ETH, and then safely scammed. All social networks and chats have been removed at the moment."
This is a global/international case not involving a specific country.
The background of the exchange platform, service, or individuals involved, as it would have been seen or understood at the time of the events.
Include:
- Known history of when and how the service was started.
- What problems does the company or service claim to solve?
- What marketing materials were used by the firm or business?
- Audits performed, and excerpts that may have been included.
- Business registration documents shown (fake or legitimate).
- How were people recruited to participate?
- Public warnings and announcements prior to the event.
Don't Include:
- Any wording which directly states or implies that the business is/was illegitimate, or that a vulnerability existed.
- Anything that wasn't reasonably knowable at the time of the event.
There could be more than one section here. If the same platform is involved with multiple incidents, then it can be linked to a main article page.
The Reality
This sections is included if a case involved deception or information that was unknown at the time. Examples include:
- When the service was actually started (if different than the "official story").
- Who actually ran a service and their own personal history.
- How the service was structured behind the scenes. (For example, there was no "trading bot".)
- Details of what audits reported and how vulnerabilities were missed during auditing.
What Happened
The specific events of the loss and how it came about. What actually happened to cause the loss and some of the events leading up to it.
| Date | Event | Description |
|---|---|---|
| October 6th, 2020 | Main Event | Expand this into a brief description of what happened and the impact. If multiple lines are necessary, add them here. |
Technical Details
This section includes specific detailed technical analysis of any security breaches which happened. What specific software vulnerabilities contributed to the problem and how were they exploited?
Total Amount Lost
The total amount lost has been estimated at $885,000 USD.
How much was lost and how was it calculated? If there are conflicting reports, which are accurate and where does the discrepancy lie?
Immediate Reactions
How did the various parties involved (firm, platform, management, and/or affected individual(s)) deal with the events? Were services shut down? Were announcements made? Were groups formed?
Ultimate Outcome
What was the end result? Was any investigation done? Were any individuals prosecuted? Was there a lawsuit? Was any tracing done?
Total Amount Recovered
There do not appear to have been any funds recovered in this case.
What funds were recovered? What funds were reimbursed for those affected users?
Ongoing Developments
What parts of this case are still remaining to be concluded?
General Prevention Policies
Having a lightweight and reasonable framework for platforms would reduce the need for platforms to launch under the table, and in response, investors would expect greater transparency for who is behind the project.
In this case, the funds were purportedly taken by a single team member, so it seems that a multi-signature arrangement would have removed this risk.
Individual Prevention Policies
No specific policies for individual prevention have yet been identified in this case.
For the full list of how to protect your funds as an individual, check our Prevention Policies for Individuals guide.
Platform Prevention Policies
Policies for platforms to take to prevent this situation have not yet been selected in this case.
For the full list of how to protect your funds as a financial service, check our Prevention Policies for Platforms guide.
Regulatory Prevention Policies
No specific regulatory policies have yet been identified in this case.
For the full list of regulatory policies that can prevent loss, check our Prevention Policies for Regulators guide.
References
- ↑ CipherTrace Cryptocurrency Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Report 2020 (Jun 20, 2021)
- ↑ Top 10 Bitcoin Scams to Avoid in 2021 - Securities.io (Jul 12, 2021)
- ↑ Amplyfi.Money Holders (Jul 12, 2021)
- ↑ Rug Pulling Threatens Defi - Ideas - yearn.finance (Jun 5, 2021)
- ↑ Trezor Ethereum Explorer (Jul 12, 2021)
- ↑ List of Defi scams (Jul 12, 2021)
- ↑ [SCAM] AmplYfi (Jul 12, 2021)
- ↑ AmpleForth.org (Jul 12, 2021)
- ↑ AYFI币交易平台_转让1121枚Amplyfi.Money (AYFI)币 (Jul 13, 2021)
- ↑ Newsletter #11 (Jul 12, 2021)
- ↑ 12 Defi Con Artists Exposed – Are Rug Pulling Incidents Threatening the Future of Defi ? – Bitcoin worldReport (Jul 24, 2021)
- ↑ Worldwide crypto & NFT rug pulls and scams tracker - Comparitech (Dec 15, 2022)