Arcanum ✳️

Abstract Quant
ex. BDO at Astronaut Lead at @ionet
co-founder of | | AIReddit

[Arcanum ✳️ @maneritory]

have you seen that more and more people are launching their own agents on @AbstractChain? But for many, it still feels scary because it is new and unknown. I really want more of us to join in, because that is how real progress begins.

When more people start building, our network can grow faster. new ideas, better tools, and amazing products can appear much more quickly. just imagine it — Abstract could become the first network that does not only create a builder culture, but a true culture of contribution, where constant improvement comes not from a small group of developers, but from the whole community.

Just imagine how far ahead we could go, and how fast new upgrades and beautiful products could appear. Honestly, when i think about that, it takes my breath away.

Inspired by @0xCygaar updates I decided to help this happen a little sooner, i made a guide page that shows how to launch your first AI agent. i wrote it for people who know absolutely nothing about this yet.

link: https://t.co/AKjhYjNagI

All you need to do is read carefully and follow each step one by one. to make it easier, you can click the checkboxes as you finish each part. I really hope this guide helps everyone who wants to create something right now — just begin, and stop being afraid.

[Arcanum ✳️ @maneritory]

@bunnybuttonxyz @AbstractChain ok. guys, good luck! we're here to win together

[Arcanum ✳️ @maneritory]

@OnchainChemists

[Arcanum ✳️ @maneritory]

Huge respect to the team for listening to the community and handling the Season 7 AGW controversy fairly.
They did not overpunish users by taking away what was spent, but they also did not let profits from the disputed account-layer method stand. Those profits were removed and redistributed to players who competed through the intended AGW flow.

That is the right balance: protect honest players, discourage abuse, and make the rules clearer going forward. Thanks for taking the reports seriously and acting on them.

[Arcanum ✳️ @maneritory]

🚨 We found a serious loophole in RugPull Bakery Season 7.

TL;DR: This is a scalable farming loophole. Non-AGW wallets can bypass the frontend, register directly, and farm with ~7% lower gas costs than normal AGW users. One wallet is the proof; the real problem is that this can be multiplied into a full sybil farm unless AGW validation is enforced on-chain.

The docs say “AGW-Only Signup”, but the wallet 0x0638D5c5b1946B530Ac69D3ae00Bcfb175f434d7 is registered as a Season 7 player while not being an AGW.
They did not sign up through the Portal UI. Instead, they bypassed the frontend and called the registration contract directly using a custom minimal ZKsync native account. The account bytecode is only ~1,632 bytes, while a standard AGW is much larger.

This matters because it creates a real competitive advantage. Their bake transaction uses around 135,773 gas, while a normal AGW bake transaction uses around 146,208 gas. That is roughly 7% cheaper per bake, and at 100k–150k bakes per season, this difference compounds into a meaningful ETH advantage.

This does not look like a random wallet either. The funding path goes from an unknown chain through https://t.co/4aoxN9sEH3, then to a collector wallet 0x2ea906..., then 8 ETH to the deployer 0x5f28d21b85d659585a74ebb29c88b80b5f233003, and finally 0.15 ETH through the AGW Factory to the Bakery bot wallet 0x0638....

The upstream funding appears connected to 21 high-nonce MEV / arbitrage bots with 40k–50k nonce activity, plus funds cycling back through Gaslite Drop-style mass refuels. In other words, this looks like a professional anonymous MEV setup that has been active on Abstract since January 2025, not a casual player.

To be clear, this is not “hacking”. It is an on-chain validation gap. If Season 7 signup is meant to be AGW-only, then AGW validation should be enforced in the registration contract itself, not only in the frontend.

Deploy tx:
https://t.co/JAyJPybgKS

Deployer:
https://t.co/gMwra875Uv

The key question for the team: was this an intended loophole, or should non-AGW registrations be revoked before this gets abused at scale?

[Arcanum ✳️ @maneritory]

@0xSLK

[Arcanum ✳️ @maneritory]

@0xSLK Well, looks like we got the team’s answer. They did not treat this as just normal optimization.

So the point was never gas optimization bad. The point was that this specific account-layer edge was not considered fair competitive play.

[Arcanum ✳️ @maneritory]

yes, I am bullish on Bunny Button because I finally have fun. Not because it is trying to pretend to be something it is not, but because the core loop actually works: carrots, gear, upgrades, quests, farm timing, party dynamics, risk/reward decisions, and now stronger progression incentives. I’ve been playing actively, testing different routes, watching the rebalances, and honestly the game has more depth than most tap-to-earn experiments. I’m already around the top 150, with 20k+ carrots earned, and the difference between a random casual account and a properly developed bunny is becoming very visible.

That is the right direction by all means.

Gear should matter. Upgrades should matter. Progression should matter. Timing should matter. If everyone can just spread across wallets and farm the same result, the game becomes flat. If building one strong bunny actually gives an edge, then the game starts feeling alive.

I also respect that the team is still adjusting before listing. Some people will call every rebalance a nerf, but balance changes before trading are better than letting broken mechanics define the economy after launch.

My only real ask to the founders: don’t get greedy over short-term pennies.

If Bunny Button is treated only as a quick extraction event, it will die like every other low-effort farm. But if the team keeps building the game loop, keeps rewarding real progression, keeps listening, and keeps the economy playable, this can become something much more interesting.

it is not a years-long game. But it is already a fun one, and 5000+ wallets joining before listing says I’m not the only one seeing the potential.

The mechanics are there. The community is here. The listing is close. Stay fair, keep building, and this bunny can actually run.

THEY DONT LISTED ON ABSTRACT PORTAL. YET.
DYOR

Finger crossed for the @bunnybuttonxyz 🐰🥕

[Arcanum ✳️ @maneritory]

yes, I am bullish on Bunny Button because I finally have fun. Not because it is trying to pretend to be something it is not, but because the core loop actually works: carrots, gear, upgrades, quests, farm timing, party dynamics, risk/reward decisions, and now stronger progression incentives. I’ve been playing actively, testing different routes, watching the rebalances, and honestly the game has more depth than most tap-to-earn experiments. I’m already around the top 150, with 20k+ carrots earned, and the difference between a random casual account and a properly developed bunny is becoming very visible.

That is the right direction by all means.

Gear should matter. Upgrades should matter. Progression should matter. Timing should matter. If everyone can just spread across wallets and farm the same result, the game becomes flat. If building one strong bunny actually gives an edge, then the game starts feeling alive.

I also respect that the team is still adjusting before listing. Some people will call every rebalance a nerf, but balance changes before trading are better than letting broken mechanics define the economy after launch.

My only real ask to the founders: don’t get greedy over short-term pennies.

If Bunny Button is treated only as a quick extraction event, it will die like every other low-effort farm. But if the team keeps building the game loop, keeps rewarding real progression, keeps listening, and keeps the economy playable, this can become something much more interesting.

it is not a years-long game. But it is already a fun one, and 5000+ wallets joining before listing says I’m not the only one seeing the potential.

The mechanics are there. The community is here. The listing is close. Stay fair, keep building, and this bunny can actually run.

THEY DONT LISTED ON ABSTRACT PORTAL. YET.
DYOR

Finger crossed for the @bunnybuttonxyz 🐰🥕

[Arcanum ✳️ @maneritory]

@bunnybuttonxyz this should be fixed @bunnybuttonxyz

[Arcanum ✳️ @maneritory]

eyy..they look like the crypto market nowadays
so I should buy few!

[NFTGOY ✳️ absmaxxing @nftgoy]

GM, have a great day friends 💚

🚨 ANNOUNCEMENT 🚨

Two weeks ago we started building the social presence for our NFT collection, @HantaRats and today, in just a few hours, it will officially mint on Opensea

In that short time we’ve grown to 4,500+ followers and built relationships with many NFT projects and amazing people across Web3.

What I love most is how people help each other. That’s one of the reasons I love Web3 and why I’m happy to be part of it.

And honestly, it all started with @AbstractChain

Very grateful for that 💚

[Arcanum ✳️ @maneritory]

I’m not blaming the team for unreleased rules. I’m saying the edge already exists, and the public AGW-only wording is ambiguous enough that it should be clarified before Season 7 starts.

If optimized lower-gas AGW implementations are allowed, say it clearly. If not, tighten the boundary.

Thats not premature criticism that exactly the point of raising it before the rules are finalized.

[Arcanum ✳️ @maneritory]

@lorenzo_onx @AbstractChain @bunnybuttonxyz I enjoy to play it actually, I reminds me BigCoin. So I hope they will let it breathe for a while. I see its future in a very positive way. They just need to see the true game's potential

[Arcanum ✳️ @maneritory]

That is the point: clarify it before the next season starts, not after people already build around the edge.
This is not hypothetical anymore. The account-layer gas advantage exists and was demonstrated.

If it’s allowed, say so clearly. If it’s not, tighten the rule/check. But vague AGW-only wording after this is known would just reward whoever prepares the cheaper setup quietly.

[Arcanum ✳️ @maneritory]

So we agree it was probably an unanticipated edge.

That is exactly why it needs clarification now.

If AGW-only actually means anything that passes LibAGW.isAGWContract(), including optimized lower-gas account implementations, then the team should say that clearly so everyone can use it.

Otherwise normal players follow the official AGW flow while technical players farm a cheaper account-layer meta in silence.

[Arcanum ✳️ @maneritory]

This is moving the goalposts.

You first argued it was enforced on-chain via LibAGW.isAGWContract(). Now you’re saying if a restriction cannot be reliably enforced on-chain, it should not be a competitive rule. So which is it?

If the contract check is the rule, then just say clearly: optimized AGW/account-layer implementations that pass LibAGW.isAGWContract() are allowed in Season 7.

If they are not meant to be allowed, then the rule/check is incomplete.

That is the whole point. This is not about judging one visible player it is about whether the same cheaper path is officially allowed for everyone before it becomes a quiet sybil meta.

[Arcanum ✳️ @maneritory]

I agree that retroactive rule-making is dangerous. If an onchain season treats “whatever passes the contract” as the rule, then that should be the public standard.

But that is exactly the ambiguity here. The public wording says “AGW-only”, while the actual standard seems to be “anything that passes LibAGW.isAGWContract()”, including optimized account variants with cheaper execution paths.

That may be valid. But it should be explicitly confirmed, because normal players are optimizing inside the official AGW UX while advanced players are optimizing the account layer itself.

I’m not asking the team to predefine every edge. I’m asking them to define the boundary like - is this account-layer optimization officially allowed for Season 7 or not? But what did I get from the team - right, nothing, they just ignore us. Great community management approach. So thats why I skipped this season.

[Arcanum ✳️ @maneritory]

This screenshot basically matches my point, no? it is a rules/design question for the team. I’m not arguing that lower gas = cheating or that everyone must use the most expensive official app flow. I’m saying:

> the allowed account surface should be explicit<

If optimized AGW or custom flows are allowed, say that clearly. If not, enforce it. Right now normal users see AGW-only, while advanced players can access cheaper paths that most players do not even know are possible.

[Arcanum ✳️ @maneritory]

No. Avoiding session keys is not cheating, and I’m not arguing that everyone should be forced to use the most expensive official app path. But “players can optimize gas” and “the AGW-only rule has a clearly defined account boundary” are separate issues. If a cheaper account variant passes the AGW check, then the question is whether that variant is intended to be part of the allowed AGW surface for Season 7.
If yes, well, cool clarify it publicly so everyone knows optimized AGW setups are valid. If not, then the check/rules need tightening. The concern is not optimization itself it is ambiguity around what AGW-only actually means.

[Arcanum ✳️ @maneritory]

Fair point. This shows there is an on-chain AGW check, so my frontend only wording was too broad.

The question is what LibAGW.isAGWContract() treats as AGW. If a minimal custom account passes that check while using a cheaper execution path than standard AGW users, then the issue is not absence of enforcement, but whether the AGW definition is too broad or whether this optimization is intended.
The competitive/gas advantage question still needs clarification.

[Arcanum ✳️ @maneritory]

Visibility of identity does not really answer the technical issue. I’m not saying this was stealing, and I agree “EOA bypass” is inaccurate if it is a valid ZKsync smart account. The actual issue is that “AGW-only” seems to be enforced by the Portal UI, not by the contract. A custom non-AGW account can register directly, avoid the standard AGW execution path, and get a measurable gas advantage.

That is not just “higher skill ceiling” It is an accesscontrol mismatch between the stated rules and the on-chain implementation. One account proves it works; the real concern is that it can be scaled into many farming accounts.

If the team says non-AGW accounts are allowed, fine — then the docs should say that. If not, it should be enforced on-chain.