Crypto Alert: 2 Victims Lose Over $60M In Address Poisoning Scam

bitcoinistPublished on 2026-02-09Last updated on 2026-02-09

Abstract

Cryptocurrency users are facing significant losses due to address poisoning scams, where attackers send tiny "dust" transactions from lookalike addresses. When users copy what appears to be a familiar address, they instead send funds to a fraudulent account. In January, one victim lost $12.25 million, following a $50 million loss in December. Additionally, signature phishing is rising sharply, with $6.27 million stolen from 4,741 victims in January—a 207% increase from the previous month. These scams trick users into approving malicious smart contracts. Analysts report approximately 270 million poisoning attempts across Ethereum and Binance Smart Chain, targeting 17 million addresses. Over 6,633 confirmed theft cases have resulted in more than $83.8 million in losses. The Fusaka upgrade on Ethereum, which reduced transaction fees, has made it cheaper for scammers to execute these attacks. Stablecoins like DAI are often used to move illicit funds due to a lack of cooperation with freezing mechanisms.

A simple slip of the fingers has turned into huge losses for some crypto users. One wallet lost over $12 million in January after copying the wrong address, and similar high-value mistakes were seen in December.

Reports say attackers are using tiny deposits and subtle address tweaks to trick people into sending funds to accounts they do not control.

How Copying Mistakes Turn Costly

Address lookalikes are the trick. Attackers send tiny “dust” transfers from addresses that mimic ones in a user’s history so that when someone copies an address they get the wrong string.

According to Scam Sniffer, that single mistake cost one user $12.2 million in January and followed a $50 million hit in December.

The tactic relies on people trusting what appears familiar; it works because most wallets show only the first and last few characters, and the middle can be swapped for a malicious match.

Signature Phishing Is Growing Too

Signature scams lure users into approving dangerous contract calls or broad token approvals. Reports say $6.27 million was stolen from 4,741 victims in January, a 207% rise from December.

Two wallets took the lion’s share — accounting for 65% of those signature phishing losses. Attackers increasingly mix both tricks: small deposits to get attention, followed by social engineering that convinces someone to sign a transaction.

Scale And Automation

This is not limited to a few isolated scams. Based on reports from several trackers, roughly 270 million poisoning attempts have been recorded across Ethereum and Binance Smart Chain, targeting around 17 million addresses.

Total crypto market cap at $2.35 trillion on the daily chart: TradingView

Confirmed cases leading to actual theft number about 6,633, but the confirmed loss figure already tops $83.8 million. One campaign alone created 82,030 lookalike wallets, and in September 2025 there were about 32,290 suspicious poisoning events hitting 6,516 unique victims.

The numbers show a picture of automated scripts and high-volume tactics designed to find and exploit simple human errors.

Image: Chainalysis

Why Ethereum Has Seen More Dust Activity

Analysts link part of the recent surge to the Fusaka upgrade, which lowered the cost of sending tiny transactions. Coin Metrics analyzed over 227 million stablecoin balance updates on Ethereum from November 2025 through January 2026 and found that 38% of those updates were under a single penny.

Stablecoin-related dust now makes up an estimated 11% of Ethereum transactions and touches 26% of active addresses on an average day. Lower fees make these spray-and-pray tactics cheap and efficient.

Where Stolen Funds End Up

Blockchain intelligence teams have tracked flows and noticed patterns. Whitestream reports that DAI has become a favored place to park illicit proceeds because its protocol governance does not cooperate with authorities to freeze wallets.

Web3 Antivirus has cataloged a range of large poisonings, with tracked losses spanning from $4 million to $126 million in some incidents. Once funds move through these paths they are often hard to recover.

Featured image from Arek Socha/Pixabay, chart from TradingView

Related Questions

QWhat is an address poisoning scam in the context of cryptocurrency?

AAn address poisoning scam is a tactic where attackers send tiny 'dust' transfers from addresses that mimic ones in a user's transaction history. This tricks the user into copying the wrong, malicious address when they intend to send funds, resulting in the loss of their cryptocurrency.

QHow much did a single user lose in January due to copying the wrong address, and what was the larger loss reported in December?

AIn January, a single user lost $12.2 million by copying the wrong address. This followed a larger loss of $50 million from a similar mistake in December.

QBesides address poisoning, what other type of attack saw a significant increase in January, and by what percentage did it grow?

ASignature phishing attacks also saw a significant increase. $6.27 million was stolen from 4,741 victims in January, representing a 207% rise from December.

QWhat technical upgrade on the Ethereum network is linked to the recent surge in dusting activity for these scams?

AThe Fusaka upgrade on the Ethereum network is linked to the surge in dusting activity because it lowered the cost of sending tiny transactions, making these spray-and-pray tactics cheap and efficient for attackers.

QAccording to the article, which stablecoin has become a favored place for attackers to park illicit proceeds and why?

ADAI has become a favored place for attackers to park illicit proceeds because its protocol governance does not cooperate with authorities to freeze wallets, making it harder to recover stolen funds.

Related Reads

Uncovering the Truth About Agent Commerce, Payments, and Infrastructure

Decoding Agent Commerce, Payments, and Infrastructure: The Reality Over the past year, I've been building infrastructure for the Agent economy, engaging with major players like Stripe, Visa, Coinbase, Google, and dozens of startups. A clear conclusion emerges: true, large-scale demand does not yet exist. Startups face structural challenges. Data points illustrate this gap. Stripe's Agent commerce platform has over 1,000 merchants but only single-digit transacting agents. Visa's Agent payment token requires 9-month KYC and a $250M revenue threshold, accessible only to giants like Amazon. On-chain analysis reveals actual daily Agent transaction volume is around $17k, half of which are test transactions. The article analyzes four potential markets: **1. Agent-to-Merchant (A2M):** Current AI shopping UX is often inferior to traditional e-commerce for visual, comparison-heavy purchases (clothing, electronics). Chat interfaces are a step back. Real merchant interest is defensive "Agent Engine Optimization," fearing future obsolescence, not current demand. Potential exists in high-frequency, low-decision purchases (e.g., food delivery) or simplifying terrible UX (complex checkouts, non-native shoppers), but these require massive consumer distribution channels dominated by giants like DoorDash and Amazon. **2. Agent-to-API (A2A):** Developers already have subscriptions and billing for core APIs (compute, data). The argument for micro-payments via crypto for sub-dollar API calls is addressed by pre-paid balances today. The deeper issue is supplier resistance; major SaaS firms rely on enterprise contracts, not fractional cent pricing. Opportunity lies in the long tail of niche services, but this is a smaller market catering to developers, a historically low-paying group. **3. Agent-to-Agent (A2A):** This remains a theoretical long-term vision with near-zero current transaction volume. It involves unique challenges: discovery, trust, negotiation, dispute resolution. When it materializes, it will require a fundamentally new settlement infrastructure for high-speed, variable-value, multi-party transactions. It's a real long-term bet, but not the current market. **4. Agent-to-Finance (A2F):** This is the only category with existing, paying demand. Integrating AI into financial workflows (trading, portfolio management) is a natural evolution and enables new capabilities like autonomous rebalancing. However, competition favors incumbents with regulatory licenses, compliance infrastructure, and existing client relationships. **The Real Issue:** Why is infrastructure still being built? Incumbents can afford long-term bets, and payment companies see every problem as a nail for their payment hammer. However, payment is just one piece. The core challenge is *coordination*—orchestrating work between Agents and humans, verifying outcomes, and settling results. Payment is part of settlement, which is part of coordination. Companies that solve the coordination problem will subsume payments, not the other way around. Startups lack the infinite runway of giants and must find today's real market, which, after a year of exploration, lies outside these four categories—in an area with real, growing, and underserved activity.

marsbit5h ago

Uncovering the Truth About Agent Commerce, Payments, and Infrastructure

marsbit5h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片