According to a tweet by an XRPL dUNL validator, VET, a transaction mistakenly incurred approximately 26,000 XRP in fees for a transfer of only 0.15 XRP. The transaction, dated August 31, 2024, was uncovered using the advanced search feature of XRPScan, a platform that allows users to explore detailed transaction data. 
This incident highlights the risks of errors in automated processes involving cryptocurrencies, as even a minor mistake can lead to significant financial loss. In this particular case, the substantial fee paid on the transaction is a technical malfunction, possibly caused by a faulty script. 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="550" data-dnt="true"> 
 2 Weeks ago someone paid accidentally ~26k <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/XRP?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#XRP</a> in fees for a 0.15 XRP Payment <img src="https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/15.0.3/72x72/1f62c.png" alt="😬" class="wp-smiley" style="height: 1em; max-height: 1em;"> 
 Found via the advanced search of XRPScan <img src="https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/15.0.3/72x72/2764.png" alt="❤" class="wp-smiley" style="height: 1em; max-height: 1em;"> <a href="https://t.co/yQlSDpH1LD">pic.twitter.com/yQlSDpH1LD</a> 
 — Vet <img src="https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/15.0.3/72x72/1f3f4-200d-2620-fe0f.png" alt="🏴‍☠️" class="wp-smiley" style="height: 1em; max-height: 1em;"> (@Vet_X0) <a href="https://twitter.com/Vet_X0/status/1835715780723241353?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 16, 2024</a>
</blockquote> 
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> 
<h2 id="b-details-of-the-transaction-b">Details of the Transaction</h2> 
The transaction in question was processed successfully on ledger index 90,428,776 with a source account, associated with Coincheck, a Japanese cryptocurrency exchange, which had transferred a minuscule amount of 0.15 XRP. 
While the payment was completed, the fee was disproportionately large, which drew the attention of XRPScan users and XRPL validators monitoring transaction activity on the ledger. 
An X user by the name of <a href="https://x.com/abbadonxrp/status/1835719342236852446?s=46">Abbadon.x</a> responded to the initial tweet, questioning how such an error could occur. In response, the VET account replied, <a href="https://x.com/vet_x0/status/1835754714056540503?s=46">suggesting</a> that it was likely a developer error, with the script responsible for managing the transaction “bugging out” due to bad code. 
This explanation points to a technical fault rather than a flaw in the XRP ledger or its protocols, emphasizing that such occurrences are preventable with proper handling of code and transaction settings. 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="550" data-dnt="true"> 
 We are on twitter, follow us to connect with us :- <a href="https://twitter.com/TimesTabloid1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@TimesTabloid1</a> 
 — TimesTabloid (@TimesTabloid1) <a href="https://twitter.com/TimesTabloid1/status/1680250907504656385?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 15, 2023</a>
</blockquote> 
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> 
<h2 id="b-mitigating-risks-with-verified-platforms-b">Mitigating Risks with Verified Platforms</h2> 
In their reply, VET further clarified that such errors could be avoided by using trusted platforms that integrate advanced safeguards for transactions. 
For example, platforms like Crossmark, Xaman, and Coinbase provide more user-friendly interfaces and tighter controls that minimize the risk of setting incorrect transaction fees. 
These platforms have built-in mechanisms to ensure that users do not accidentally input excessive fees, reducing the likelihood of such mistakes. 
This incident shows the importance of selecting the right tools and platforms during cryptocurrency transactions. For individuals who are less technically inclined or using automated scripts, opting for well-established exchanges and custodians with reliable transaction systems is a prudent step to avoid costly mistakes. 
Disclaimer: This content is meant to inform and should not be considered financial advice. The views expressed in this article may include the author’s personal opinions and do not represent Times Tabloid’s opinion. Readers are urged to do in-depth research before making any investment decisions. Any action taken by the reader is strictly at their own risk. Times Tabloid is not responsible for any financial losses. 
Follow us on <a href="https://twitter.com/TimesTabloid1">Twitter</a>, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/timestabloid/">Facebook</a>, <a href="https://t.me/markettabloid">Telegram</a>, and <a href="https://news.google.com/publications/CAAqLAgKIiZDQklTRmdnTWFoSUtFSFJwYldWemRHRmliRzlwWkM1amIyMG9BQVAB?hl=en-US&amp;gl=US&amp;ceid=US%3Aen">Google News</a> 
The post <a href="https://timestabloid.com/someone-accidentally-spent-26000-xrp-fees-for-a-0-15-xrp-payment/">Someone Accidentally Spent 26,000 XRP Fees For a $0.15 XRP Payment</a> appeared first on <a href="https://timestabloid.com">Times Tabloid</a>.

Someone Accidentally Spent 26,000 XRP Fees For a $0.15 XRP Payment

Table of Contents

Times Tabloid

Other articles published on Sep 17, 2024

eToro Limits U.S. Crypto Offerings to BTC, ETH, and BCH After $1.5M SEC Settlement

Ethereum Foundation Executes Weekly ETH Sales to Manage Liquidity

Orderly Network Announces AI Bounty Program to Boost the Future of Web3 Trading

Succinct Labs and OP Labs Team Up to Launch New Zero-Knowledge Proof Solution

WalletConnect Unveils WCT Token and Decentralization Plans

Launch Africa, Techstars, 54 Collective top list of active investors in Africa in H1 2024

Join our free newsletter for daily crypto updates!