0xCL

Investigating...

[0xCL @0x121CL]

https://t.co/fgP0io03cq

[0xCL @0x121CL]

Also @turtledotxyz, you should really do better...

[0xCL @0x121CL]

https://t.co/Vu4PiPqajW

[0xCL @0x121CL]

@EthanDeFi_ thanks ser🫡

[0xCL @0x121CL]

Part II of the investigation: https://t.co/VxYhXBMoFu

[0xCL @0x121CL]

https://t.co/96kJ8duwCD

[0xCL @0x121CL]

Part I of the investigation: https://t.co/8ZappAijK1

[0xCL @0x121CL]

https://t.co/fgP0io03cq

[0xCL @0x121CL]

Their post: https://t.co/IDpYE5Lz6I

[Altura @alturax]

Hi everyone,

As many of you are aware, we were scheduled to begin purchasing USDT via our OTC partner using a fiat transfer from our Altura Bank account.

Unfortunately, we have encountered an unexpected issue. The bank account holding the funds has been temporarily restricted by the bank. For the sake of transparency, we are attaching proof of this restriction. We have blacked out the sort code and account number in the attached image for security and safety reasons.

We have already been in contact with the bank, and at this stage they have asked us to wait while they complete their review. They have advised that they will contact us if they require any additional information from our side.
At this point, the situation is entirely outside of our control, and there is no further action we can take until we receive an update from the bank. Our priority is to remain as transparent as possible throughout this process, and we will continue to keep the community informed as soon as we receive any new information.

Updates will be shared across our official X account, Telegram channel, and Discord as they become available.

In the meantime, we will be temporarily pausing the community chats due to our limited team capacity. This will allow us to focus on resolving the situation and communicating any developments as quickly as possible.
We kindly ask everyone to avoid speculation while we await the outcome of the bank's review. We understand there may be questions, but until we receive official information, we don't want to provide assumptions or inaccurate updates. As soon as we have any confirmed developments, they will be shared with the community immediately.

We appreciate everyone who continues to stand by us during this time. Our focus remains on resolving this situation and moving forward as quickly as possible.

Thank you for your patience, understanding, and continued support. Please keep an eye on our official X account for the latest updates.

[0xCL @0x121CL]

@0xMakima_ 👀

[0xCL @0x121CL]

@Feline_cap @Benjamin918_ @0xMakima_ @cocoahomology @QiDaoProtocol Already saw some interesting stuff on chain about qidao and all the wallets surrounding it. No incentive to investigate it years later for me but would've likely been an interesting one.

[0xCL @0x121CL]

The on-chain receipts suggest @Benjamin918_ farmed his own airdrop.

@0xMakima_ and @cocoahomology already flagged the sudden decision to reward YT buyers and that the largest YT buyer (0x23d0f8944468F79FB06850c136a0E6B3Ee4a450F) was first funded by QiDao working capital account 2 and minted "megaben.eth" meaning the wallet belongs to Benjamin himself.

Benjamin's response? That wallet belongs to "an old colleague and friend" with no connection to Cap Labs.

Except 0x23d was also the first funder of 0x83c21bb4Bf0EC116f5a1945AaeF847Fe3b321B32: the wallet that owns "caplabs.eth," off-ramps through the same Coinbase address as QiDao and 0x23d, and has interacted repeatedly with megaben.eth (0xD39C1775E98A73fd0A9c8ECac8C9fEDb9BB81E45) and multiple Cap Labs multisigs.

An "old friend with nothing to do with Cap Labs" doesn't end up funding the wallet owning caplabs.eth.

Stop the cap, @Benjamin918_. Even for a bear market, this is low standards.

[Benjamin @Benjamin918_]

https://t.co/TDws3EsnQ9

[Rekt News @RektHQ]

Multi-strategy yield protocol @alturax, raised $39M for a gold-backed strategy, apparently moved funds through Tron, relied on a verifier tied to the COO's own project, ran a dashboard that admitted it verified nothing, closed the vault, and left depositors waiting.

https://t.co/2YI4mbA22N

[0xCL @0x121CL]

@Schamanli @morsyxbt @alturax Thank you!

[0xCL @0x121CL]

Altura DeFi
Earlier I read a detailed post by @morsyxbt about the past rebrands, funding claims and InfoFi campaign, so I decided to dig in after seeing 30%+ yield claims.
As written by MorsyXBT the official @alturax page has been rebranded a few times. The account is based in Switzerland and has a few shady previous names, including Fitnacapita(l). It’s obvious that @FitnaEth is running the account, upon looking into Fitna’s history (0x408130934aDcE05d82d8dC3706e29d02d91CF886) it’s clear that he spends most time gambling and buying ENS names in the hopes of getting rich.

Ranveer Arora
Ranveer Arora, the founder of Altura, claims credibility by referring to his work at PwC and AllianceBernstein. According to the UK chamber of commerce Altura Defi Ltd has been registered on Nov 6th 2025. The sole director is Ranveer Arora, born in November 1989. Altura has been registered on the following address: Level One, Basecamp, 49 Jamaica Street, Liverpool, England, L1 0AH. Note that this registration occurred just three months ago, making this an new legal entity with no established operational history.

Coincidentally, on the same address, another registration can be found by Ranveer Arora: Arora Logistics and Transport Ltd. This raises questions about operational focus and business legitimacy. From claiming on LinkedIn to have worked at PwC and starting his career as income strategist at AllianceBernstein in 2006 (which would make him 17 years old at the time). There’s absolutely no public mention of this logistics company anywhere on his LinkedIn profile or professional history. Why would someone with claimed high-level finance experience be simultaneously running a logistics company from the same virtual office address?

Besides that, Arora shared a transaction on his X account showing that he entered the pre-deposit campaign with 25K of his own money, allegedly to demonstrate his confidence in the project: https://t.co/ZohM11EoIr

The address in question (0x12f8F492ca503CA5505b67d42D63C91113E3D967) was funded via ChangeNow with no visible trace to inputs, indicating the funds were likely exchanged via XMR. This is particularly interesting given Arora’s own public statements about transparency being important in crypto.

Other pre-depositors can be traced back to low-tier kols and little backing by big names within the scene. The lack of institutional or well-known crypto investor participation is a significant red flag for a project claiming to deploy $100M+ in capital.

Inessa Holdings
Altura claims to work with Inessa Holdings in a physical gold trading deal that supposedly generates part of the promised 30%+ annual returns (0.5% weekly). They claim to deploy capital up to 100M USD for the physical gold trade. Inessa in turn pays Altura a fixed 0.5% return per week on the deployed capital.

This contract has been signed by Rajaram Natrajan on behalf of Inessa Holdings. There’s no professional record of Rajaram Natrajan in relation to Inessa Holdings anywhere publicly. No LinkedIn profile, no business registrations, no traceable professional history. For someone supposedly authorized to sign $100M contracts on behalf of an investment firm, this complete absence of digital footprint is highly suspicious.

Looking at Inessa Holdings itself, it claims to be a private management firm specializing in trading RWA with a track record of 5 years+ and $450M assets traded/managed, impressive claims that would place them among established institutional players.

Inessa Holdings itself has been registered 30-12-2024 in Dubai, already indicating that the claim of a track record of 5 years+ is false. Moreover, upon looking at web archives the claim of a track record can already questioned. Oct. 2024 this is what their site looked like, showcasing a vastly different approach to their ‘investments’.

There’s no public names representing or data supporting Inessa Holdings, despite the vast track record claims. No team page, no verifiable leadership, no regulatory filings, no audit reports, nothing that would be expected from a legitimate firm managing hundreds of millions of dollars.

Conclusion
Alturax is not just a red flag, it is a high risk of complete loss with patterns consistent with a Ponzi scheme or exit scam. There’s no visible track records of the people involved, their online accounts have no visible track record apart from the main Altura X account, showcasing a dubious past to say the least.

Moreover, the claims of a track record of 5+ years and managing $450M by Inessa Holdings are provably false, since they legally existed for only a year, and their historical website shows a completely different approach to their business.

Ranveer Arora, CEO of Altura, funded his ‘transparent’ pre-deposit via Changenow, likely exchanging the funds from XMR, showcasing 0 transparency on that behalf. In the words of himself: if it’s not verifiable onchain, it’s just a story. By his own standard, Alturax is just a story, a story built on provable lies, obscured fund sources, and a partner company that didn’t exist until a year ago.

Sources:
https://t.co/dSRtYdbPlh
https://t.co/vK303QOqVz
https://t.co/7N9uwzsRIl
https://t.co/bld1KHCNWn
https://t.co/2yY97hmWuW

[Morsy @morsyxbt]

not trying to fud but i think @alturax that recently Cookie listed on their platform is just a scam with fake funding claims :

lot of kols “k4ito opinion leaders” are promoting it without background check up, i did a small deep dive into and found lot of concerns init

lets highlight them in order wise :

1) suspicious team and past rebrands :

altura was launched on 14 nov 2025 with 90% unknown team, no such web3 background work, most team members have changed their X handles usernames several times, some members even shilled memecoins in past, that rugged people and later deleted the tweets, lol

the official X handle of altura was renamed 6 times & on 23 Aug 2025,they tried to promote a collection of 10k NFTs on solana which was later changed to 5k supply

after 2 months knowing NFTs are doing well the idea was ultimately changed to altura's crypto yield narrative

the interesting part :

the team might say we used a repurposed account, but in 2024 altura handle was once was named as “FitnaCapital” (on the name of its team member @ FitnaEth) looked into his account and found several contract addresses that was obvious scam memecoins

2) fake funding claims :

altura claimed they have raised $4M from VCs like @AscensionGrp , @moonfare and innoFinconn

the first 2 backers X handles are inactive last 1-2 years, even the team members of those VCs have no activity past 2 years and the third VC (innoFinconn) has no x, handle no public, nothing

those backers have no past investments, no altura info available on their blogs or domains, nothing, its all fake that's why platform like cryptorank and icos shows altura as their first web3 investment

3) other concerns :

Altura logged in their domain altura(.)trade on nov 1 2025 for the first time ever and posted fake funding on 1st Dec 2025 and next day on 2nd Dec 2025 , they launched on @cookiedotfun promising 0.5% of ALTU token supply to community and upto $23k for top y4ppers

20 days of building a project and an info fi camping? lol, they might be gearing up for a rug pre sale, that's why they needed 3 months of cookie campaign for hype and exactly lot of big accounts started shilling it

even the engagements on altura tweets before cookie was being redirected and supported from a particular marketing group

there are other lot of concerns, but these might be enough to warn people incase they launched any upcoming presale

be safe from rugs and always dyor don't invest your time or money on anything that is being shilled

and one thing i can bet on, is Cookie did “Zero” background check up on Altura before giving them massive visibility on their platform

stay safe

[0xCL @0x121CL]

@allthewayharsh 🤡

[0xCL @0x121CL]

https://t.co/96kJ8duwCD

[0xCL @0x121CL]

@hypernav_xyz That's because it isnt a coincidence

[0xCL @0x121CL]

Part one of the investigation: https://t.co/8ZappAijK1

[0xCL @0x121CL]

https://t.co/fgP0io03cq

[0xCL @0x121CL]

@Leonibus99 @PAXTIBI_xyz @l_rensing @OuroborosCap8 https://t.co/LwEFQeDUsB

[0xCL @0x121CL]

Start with the simplest question your reply never answers: why would a firm settling physical gold route that settlement through your Tron wallets and from there fan it straight out to casino?

Last I checked, gold isn't settled through Stake. com (and this is just one example): TYc17rYJ57H7JUMtTQibochVRWwrfbJS2T TK2GAC8AScPoskZzJmAwvjs3qVmsMmcfhe TPuak47ph6WZNbbYEDndmmvt6aRWfGshcP TY9Cf4fnMCP4W3gxVwfVUpqJ2EzsH4qjQK TTHmZPaW8AfJymk27d1gdrYmj315nbCvYE TMThnHrZMZLr3buo7bEUgyawsX5pVgZ32Q TDgBXzdDVkpp3iJtnWFVTWDAQVGhds4Ey5 THy2b3pgBhNrz411na5YrnmcxygCpM2W6D

You also said Inessa only accepts cash, not crypto. So which is it? If the counterparty doesn't take crypto, then USDT flowing out to Tron cannot be gold settlement by your own description. Your statement rules out the only innocent explanation for these flows.

You ask who controls Kraken 2, MEXC, the OTC merchants. I don't need to establish that. You are the party claiming these funds bought physical gold, so the burden to show is yours, not mine to disprove. Arguing the methodology isn't an answer it's a very clear evasion.

And "loops are natural in on-chain settlement" doesn't survive the facts. Real settlement returns capital changed by price, spread and fees after passing through an external counterparty. The flow I traced returns to the same Kraken deposit address, unchanged. That's the same money going in a circle. It settled nothing.

To be clear about what I am and am not saying: I'm not claiming you personally control the downstream wallets. I'm saying these destinations are consistent with off-ramping and inconsistent with gold-trade settlement and you are the only party who can resolve which it is.

So resolve it. Explain why money you call gold settlement ended up at casinos and (non-)KYC off-ramps. These flows are on-chain and permanent. They don’t need my cooperation to be read and they won’t need yours.

[0xCL @0x121CL]

@Leonibus99 Everything is on-chain for everyone to see. You can check it yourself and come to your own conclusions.

Sometimes it's easier to lash out than to face reality. I sincerely hope your losses are not too large.

[0xCL @0x121CL]

https://t.co/fgP0io03cq

[0xCL @0x121CL]

@Leonibus99 @PAXTIBI_xyz @l_rensing @OuroborosCap8 Altura themselves have direct exposure to casino's with funds that should be moving to RWA strategies (according to themselves). This, among more things I have not disclosed yet.

[0xCL @0x121CL]

@Cycle_22 @ranveerar89 Thanks, I barely publish my investigations. Though, you might like this one as well https://t.co/LQsVduNvks

[0xCL @0x121CL]

I investigated GAIB’s lack of transparency prior to the post of @Cbb0fe about @gaib_ai and uncovered several interesting on-chain findings.
Here is a summary of my investigation:

Vault deposits and fund flows
Users could deposit into the AIDAUSDC/T vaults, which then sent all deposited funds during its open period to this wallet: 0xf3262049e2caa969696EEc379eb4293E6595fdD3 (referred to as wallet 0xf32).
Wallet 0xf32 then distributed these funds among multiple wallets and exchange deposits:

* Bybit deposit received $600K: 0x42b2DC158Fd8bF59193decCc81b520Fe3D765e19
* Binance deposit 1 received $52.26M: 0x28BaBD3FB0a34a5b5AF6446A327f9C4d542Bf6d4
* Binance deposit 2 received $43.6M: 0x816A01CD52c312b0bD4605cd584b3C2ac1376E8a
* Unknown wallet 1 received $5.4M: 0x54B9C69f77F8527F897261028b1F6C21D8947E6E, which then forwarded funds to 0x4E4A8F153637DdA2dF050d920848b440C2e91bed

Interestingly, wallet 0x4E4 received a small gas fee of 0.02 ETH from wallet 0x7CB59A8b01a89F8B583E72f6a2Fc99B7c7Bce554. This wallet is weird since it received two ETH mining fee transactions from 2Miners around 7 years ago, and then its 3rdand final transaction was sending funds to 0x4E4.

Next, 0x4E4 sent all funds to 0x9ea6080AC1619AadB2D37810fB8f2c28674Ac4be, which was initially funded by Flowdesk, suggesting some possible settlement.

Other flows include:
* Unknown wallet 2 received $10M: 0x6Dc945B693C29Edc0f49bfEb25Fd7E8828C3DDc7, later sent to a Kucoin deposit, possibly linked to Mechanism Capital per AI-labels from Arkham.
* Unknown wallet 3 received $10M: 0xA34C3900F666A51DAdf7A699185E4bDCb853f5e2, then swapped funds to USD0, still remaining there currently.

Wallets likely tied to Amber Group:
*$20M: 0xCD9685bA1c370d2d4FD24B09B51D96A73b534CC7
*$11.5M: 0x4458D5579Cc8c84fF1A37F64Fcd6c0d9171D2721
*$26.3M: 0x36985141dE196B5b0c4463fE3658ae34dc9A884B
*$6.2M: 0x6E6EaB0159d5a059c2863E7d94f098AB19898912
*$2M: 0xa693533d4A2e963DD830e103b82b25f54887679f

While these movements may seem strange, they could potentially be justified. However, upon looking into the AIDAUSDC/T vaults I found more alarming red flags.

Fresh wallet funding and deposit patterns
Examining the top holders of AIDAUSDC/T revealed several freshly funded wallets depositing millions into the vaults, funded via Amber Group and Binance, showing suspicious patterns:

*0xc13712F39c6C6CABAc5764a8e53CDa50f7386cd (5M, Amber)
*0xf36Eaa27D86732b53A322eDA8D741b707a85DA5 (5.4M Amber/Bybit)
*0x5faCFC686C6Be6A1C9a845A3227598ACCFa45F8d (5M, Amber)
*0xc1697Ad82e34ee8ec9C72e718E120585af1590e2 (5M, Amber)
*0x2f49b3C2811420597210511f7Ab35d6C5861C751 (1M, Amber)
*0x9BdC09869003DcF051D15CD7063C603f639ca32e (2M, Binance)
*0xc6160443C4f31D9CFD7dd0D5482d5068fc8Beb15(3M, Binance)
*0x88CB9663d63De0752580568D6582b709af3057Bb (1.7M, connection to Binance deposit 0x28Ba, funded by Binance)

These wallets deposited into the vault and are likely linked to the GAIB team.

Linking the wallets and evidence of funds recycling
The wallet 0xf36Eaa (which deposited 5.4M) is a key connection. It received 5M from Amber Group and $400K from Bybit. This is significant because wallet 0xf32 (the main vault wallet) sent $600K in total to Bybit, including a $400K transfer on August 31 at 16:30. Remarkably, 32 minutes later, 0xf36Eaa received $400K from Bybit and used it to deposit back into the AIDAUSDC vault. This strongly suggests the multisig wallet 0xf32’s funds were routed through Bybit into a fresh wallet used to recycle the same funds as new deposits.

Wallet 0xf36Eaa has three signers:
0xCf9aE37306a5057f64812cF7DB7C46a129c90713
0xea9817283DD77988e8Af05737855F363c9fAabED
0x22f6994a633c253832c0aF93445373Ea6D7E91Fe

The last signer, 0x22f6, also signs these wallets that deposited 15M combined into the vault:
* 0xc1697Ad82e34ee8ec9C72e718E120585af1590e2 (5M from Amber)
*0x5faCFC686C6Be6A1C9a845A3227598ACCFa45F8d (5M from Amber)
*0x35be033199E2Ccc00fBdD65d4D69c9228bD037A

Wallet 0x35be is another crucial link. It sent 7.5M to 0xf32 three months ago and an additional 13M when the mainnet launched, appearing to partly fund the withdrawals and also demonstrating how these wallets are interconnected.

Another wallet, 0x88CB9663d63De0752580568D6582b709af3057Bb, deposited 1.7M (funded from Binance) and sent funds into the same Binance deposit wallet as 0xf32 (0x28Ba), further connecting this wallet with the team.

Conclusion
If all these wallets are indeed funded and controlled by the GAIB team, it implies roughly $28M of user deposits were recycled through these wallets to redeposit into the deposit campaign. This not only shows a serious lack of transparency but also indicates that the GAIB team might be reusing user deposits to artificially inflate the deposits during their campaign for their own benefit.

It will be interesting to see how the team will explain these transactions but it at least explains why they haven’t been able to give any transparency before mainnet launch, as they were re-using the deposited funds for themselves.