10 Million PUMP Tokens Worth $75,000 Accidentally Destroyed Post ICO

An incident involving the accidental destruction of 10 million PUMP tokens worth $75,000 occurred just one day after the token launchpad’s Initial Coin Offering (ICO). The blockchain analytics resource Lookonchain highlighted the mishap on the social media platform X, detailing how a user lost the tokens during a routine wallet operation. The tokens were either removed by a specific wallet functionality or a separate tool that filters unwanted airdrops, and were sent to the incorrect address, effectively burning the stash and making it irretrievable. This action, typically used to reduce supply and act as a deflationary mechanism, was likely an accidental mistake in this case. The incident underscores the importance of double-checking wallet addresses in the cryptocurrency world, as numerous examples of unrecoverable losses have been documented.

The Solana-based meme coin launchpad’s ICO sold $500 million worth of PUMP, valued at $0.0040 each, in just 12 minutes. The platform announced that the token would have a maximum supply of 1 trillion, with 33% intended for the ICO, 20% for the development team, and 24% for the community and other initiatives. Additionally, 13% of the funds were allocated to early investors, with the remaining funds distributed among the ecosystem, liquidity fund, and live streams. However, some discrepancies arose once the sales event concluded, as the platform’s initial statement did not quite align with the final result. This was not the only hurdle the platform had to overcome before proceeding with the official ICO, as controversies unfolded after the sale concluded.

A project known as ERROR, based out of the University of Bern in Switzerland, has been established to address the issue of errors in scientific publications. The project aims to strengthen the culture of error checking, acceptance, and correction within the scientific community. By paying experts to examine influential scientific publications for errors, the project seeks to identify and rectify mistakes that could otherwise go unnoticed for extended periods. The payout for identifying errors scales with their magnitude, with more significant errors yielding larger rewards. This approach is similar to bug bounty programs, where the severity of the issue determines the compensation.

The ERROR project has already completed four full review cycles, with one paper identified as having a major error that affects a core conclusion. The project intends to publish around 100 reviews over the course of four years. The overarching goals of the project are to understand the types of errors that occur, the rate at which they occur, and the methods that allow for effective and efficient error detection. Additionally, the project aims to determine the cost of a dedicated error detection system compared to the follow-up costs of undetected errors.

One of the challenges faced by the ERROR project is the requirement for active consent from authors, which limits the scope of the reviews to papers where authors have agreed to participate. This constraint is due to the lack of readily available data and code in some fields, as well as the overall tolerability of the project by the research community. Despite these challenges, the project's founders believe that error checking should become a separate institution, similar to the role of the FDA in medicine, to prevent significant errors from causing harm to science and society.

The ERROR project has sparked debate within the scientific community. Some critics argue that the project's approach to error checking, which involves "experts" and "independent researchers," may lead to increased control and involvement of external parties in the scientific process. This could potentially stifle innovation and creativity, as scientists may become overly cautious in their research to avoid errors. Others view the project as a worthwhile demonstration that could be scaled up if found to be useful. The debate surrounding the ERROR project highlights the importance of error checking in scientific research. While some argue that error checking should be an integral part of the normal procedures of science, others believe that a separate institution dedicated to error detection is necessary to ensure the integrity of scientific publications. Regardless of the approach, it is clear that addressing errors in scientific research is crucial for maintaining the credibility and reliability of scientific findings.