AI 稳赚是谎言？AJE 崩盘深层解剖：资金洗白、心理操控与责任迷局

Core Insights - The AJE project claims to utilize an "AI quantitative trading" model that purportedly achieves a monthly return of 24%, but the core code is only 300 lines long and contains a critical recursive call vulnerability, allowing project operators to withdraw funds from the pool at any time [2] - AJE's "dynamic staking" mechanism misleads investors by increasing interest rates the longer funds are locked, resulting in 87% of tokens being locked before the collapse, creating a "money in, no way out" scenario [4] - Prior to the collapse, 5 associated wallets laundered 47 million AJE tokens through a mixer, with funds linked to an anonymous Binance account [4] - The exchange, Jubi, is implicated in the scheme, with internal records showing direct involvement from executives in AJE's decision-making and aggressive promotion of the project to 3 million users [4] - Blockchain tracking reveals 53 direct transfers between Jubi's hot wallet and AJE, with significant ETH transfers to a Singapore account linked to executives just before the crisis [4] - AJE's manipulation tactics included daily false profit screenshots and psychological strategies to induce further investment, leading many to fall into a cognitive trap [6] - Legal disputes arise as Jubi claims to be registered in Singapore to evade Chinese regulations, despite 90% of its users being domestic [9] - The AJE collapse highlights deep-seated industry issues, where technology is exploited as a tool for scams, and regulatory measures lag behind the evolution of such schemes [9] Financial Mechanisms - The project claims a monthly return of 24% through a neural network prediction model, which is misleading given the simplicity of its code [2] - The "dynamic staking" mechanism creates a closed-loop funding situation, delaying payout pressures and facilitating asset transfer [4] - Significant amounts of AJE tokens were laundered just before the collapse, indicating a premeditated exit strategy by the operators [4] Regulatory and Legal Context - Jubi's operational model raises questions about the legality of offshore exchanges servicing domestic users, highlighting regulatory gaps [9] - The lack of effective offshore legal cooperation and the anonymity of smart contracts complicate asset recovery efforts [6][9] - The AJE incident serves as a cautionary tale for future regulatory frameworks and technological developments in the industry [9]