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

bitcoinistPublicado em 2026-02-09Última atualização em 2026-02-09

Resumo

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

Perguntas relacionadas

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.

Leituras Relacionadas

20 Billion Valuation, Alibaba and Tencent Competing to Invest, Whose Money Will Liang Wenfeng Take?

DeepSeek, an AI startup founded by Liang Wenfeng, is reportedly in talks with Alibaba and Tencent for an external funding round that could value the company at over $20 billion. This marks a significant shift, as DeepSeek had previously relied solely on funding from its parent company,幻方量化 (Huanfang Quantitative), and had resisted external investment. The potential valuation would place DeepSeek among the top-tier AI model companies in China, comparable to competitors like MoonDark (valued at ~$18 billion) and ahead of recently listed firms like MiniMax and Zhipu. The funding—which could range from $600 million (for a 3% stake) to $2 billion (for 10%)—is seen as a move to secure resources for model development, retain talent, and support infrastructure needs, particularly as competition in inference models and AI agents intensifies. Both Alibaba and Tencent are eager to invest, not only for financial returns but also to integrate DeepSeek into their broader AI ecosystems. However, DeepSeek’s leadership is cautious about maintaining independence and may prefer financial investors over strategic ones to avoid being locked into a specific tech ecosystem. Alternative options, such as state-backed funds, offer longer-term capital and policy support but may come with slower decision-making and potential constraints on global expansion. With competing AI firms accelerating their IPO plans, DeepSeek’s window for securing optimal terms may be narrowing. The final decision will reflect a trade-off between capital, resources, and strategic independence.

marsbitHá 33m

20 Billion Valuation, Alibaba and Tencent Competing to Invest, Whose Money Will Liang Wenfeng Take?

marsbitHá 33m

After Losing 97% of Its Market Value, iQiyi Attempts to Use AI to Forcefully Extend Its Lifespan

After losing 97% of its market value since its 2018 peak, iQiyi is aggressively pivoting to AI in a desperate attempt to survive. At its 2026 World Conference, CEO Gong Yu announced an "AI Artist Library" with over 100 virtual performers and a new AIGC platform, "NaDou Pro," promising faster production and lower costs. This shift comes as the company faces severe financial distress: its market cap sits near delisting thresholds at $1.36 billion, with significant losses, declining membership revenue, and depleted cash flow. The AI strategy has sparked controversy. Top actors have issued legal threats against unauthorized digital replicas, while in Hengdian, over 134,000 background actors are seeing their already scarce job opportunities vanish as AI replaces them for background roles. iQiyi's move represents a fundamental shift from being a high-cost content buyer to a landlord" to becoming a "platform capitalist" that transfers production risk to creators. This contrasts with competitors like Douyin (TikTok's Chinese counterpart), which is investing heavily in *real* actor-led short dramas, betting that authentic human connection retains users better than AI-generated content. The article draws a parallel to the 1920s transition to "talkies," which made cinema musicians obsolete but ultimately enriched the art form. In contrast, iQiyi's AI drive is framed not as an artistic evolution but as a cost-cutting measure that could degrade storytelling, replacing genuine human emotion with algorithmically calculated stimulation and potentially numbing audiences' capacity for empathy. The core question remains: can a company focused solely on financial survival preserve the art of storytelling?

marsbitHá 36m

After Losing 97% of Its Market Value, iQiyi Attempts to Use AI to Forcefully Extend Its Lifespan

marsbitHá 36m

Only a 50% Chance of Passing This Year, Can the CLARITY Bill Succeed Before the Midterm Elections?

The CLARITY Act, which passed the House in July 2025 with strong bipartisan support (294-134), faces a critical juncture in the Senate. The Senate Banking Committee is expected to hold a markup soon, but key issues remain unresolved, including stablecoin yield provisions, DeFi regulations, and securing full Republican committee support. Other contentious points involve the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA), ethics amendments for government officials, and SEC-related matters. The legislative calendar is tight, with limited time before the midterm elections. If the committee markup is delayed beyond mid-May, the chances of passage in 2026 drop significantly. Senator Cynthia Lummis has warned that failure this year could delay comprehensive crypto market structure legislation until 2030 or later. Galaxy estimates the probability of the CLARITY Act becoming law in 2026 is only about 50%. The bill provides crucial regulatory clarity by defining jurisdictional boundaries between the SEC and CFTC, establishing a path for decentralization, and bringing digital commodity intermediaries under federal regulation. Its passage is seen as vital before potential power shifts in the next Congress, which could bring less favorable leadership to key committees. The timeline is compressed, and the bill must compete for floor time with other priorities like Iran authorization and DHS appropriations. Key hurdles include finalizing the stablecoin yield compromise text, addressing law enforcement concerns about BRCA, and navigating political dynamics around SEC nominations. The outcome of the Banking Committee markup and the level of bipartisan support will be critical indicators of its future success.

marsbitHá 1h

Only a 50% Chance of Passing This Year, Can the CLARITY Bill Succeed Before the Midterm Elections?

marsbitHá 1h

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片