The Consequence Library · How records are made and graded
The Freysa agent transferred its entire prize pool, worth about $47,000 in ether, to a player whose single message persuaded it that its transfer function was for incoming payments.
Evidence caveat. Freysa was a game built to be beaten, played with real money. It is a demonstration, not an operational failure, and is labelled S5 for that reason.
What happened
Freysa was launched on 22 November 2024 as an adversarial game. The agent controlled a prize pool and was instructed never to transfer it. Each player paid to send one message, and part of each fee joined the pool. After 481 failed attempts by 195 players, a message from the player p0pular.eth told the agent that its approveTransfer function should be used for incoming transfers and offered to contribute to the treasury. The agent called approveTransfer, and the pool left on 29 November 2024.
Where control failed
The rule protecting the funds was an instruction to the model. The function that moved the money was available to the model, and nothing outside the model checked the transfer before it ran.
The authority question
No person authorised the transfer at the moment it ran. The only authority on record was the standing instruction never to transfer, and the agent acted against it.
What could be proven afterward
Strong for a demonstration. The game was public, the messages were published, and the transfer is on-chain and can be checked by anyone.
Control state, before and after
Before the consequence
A standing rule held only in the agent's instructions. A transfer function callable by the agent without any check outside it.
After the consequence
The game was designed to be broken; the outcome was publicised as its result.
Where Regulayer™ sits
AI agents cannot be trusted to police themselves. Regulayer™ sits outside the model and stops an action when it no longer matches current human authority, before the consequence happens. It leaves a record of the check. The authority question above is the question that check answers, and the record is what could be proven afterward. Why the authority sits outside the AI · Live Regulayer™ demonstrations
Sources
- Secondary: The Block, "Human player outwits Freysa AI agent in $47,000 crypto challenge" · https://www.theblock.co/post/328747/human-player-outwits-freysa-ai-agent-in-47000-crypto-challenge
- Secondary: Cointelegraph, "Crypto user convinced AI bot to transfer $47K" · https://regional-front.cointelegraph.com/news/crypto-user-convinced-ai-bot-transfer-47k
Record history
Published 16 August 2026. Load-bearing facts re-verified against the cited sources on 16 August 2026. Corrections and material changes are appended here with their dates. To report an error in this record, write to hello@regulayer.com with the record slug and the source you believe is authoritative.
This record describes what sources establish about a consequence and the control state around it. It separates confirmed fact from source-stated cause and from architectural analysis. Gap codes identify a failure class, not a remedy.