Web3 in 2025: When reality surpasses any scenario

If Web3 is viewed as a long-running movie, then 2025 is certainly a season of continuous rewriting. The incidents are no longer purely technical; they reflect deeper aspects of human nature when faced with wealth and power. Below is a summary of the most controversial developments of the year, each carrying its own lesson.

When Politics Meet Memecoin: The $100 Million Manipulation Story

Early 2025, a wave of politically themed memecoins suddenly exploded. Public figures from the US President to Argentine leaders issued tokens bearing their names. These lock-up periods seemed like a collective game until the situation became more complicated.

The crypto community quickly uncovered a network linking these projects through on-chain analysis. Repeated names, familiar addresses appeared repeatedly. This led to the conclusion that it was not independent actions but a comprehensive plan to exploit public interest.

One group involved in this cycle faced a more complex situation. After issuing tokens, a large amount of community funds was withdrawn from liquidity pools, causing prices to drop about 80%. Further investigation revealed involved parties, including government insiders, received payments to promote the tokens. About $5 million was paid to facilitate an event that generated over $100 million in profit.

This raises an important question: when capital and power openly collaborate to “harvest” the community, who can we still trust?

The Insiders: When Talented Engineers Turn Criminals

At the end of February, a security incident was reported at a digital finance platform. Initially, everyone believed it was an external attack. But the truth was much more complicated.

The company’s founder recognized the incident and quickly made it public, promising to compensate all affected parties. They even attempted to negotiate with the hacker via blockchain messages. All these actions reflected professionalism, until history revealed a surprising truth.

An investigation confirmed the culprit was an internal team member— a highly trusted engineer. He was authorized to manage critical contracts but did not transfer authority as required. Instead, he retained access through a personal address.

The motive was a sad truth: he was dependent on transaction trades. Despite earning millions annually, he kept borrowing to cover losses from trading activities. Ultimately, the gap between income and expenses became a fatal opportunity.

This incident reminds us that firewalls are not just technology; they also depend on human integrity.

The Phrase: The “Market Healing” Flower on Blockchain

2025 witnessed an extraordinary event: a community decided to alter the outcome of a market prediction. This happened on a well-known prediction platform where participants bet on real-world event outcomes.

A prediction related to international politics was expected not to occur. When the market was nearly certain, a large investor appeared. This person held a significant amount of governance tokens, enough to influence voting results. Using this power, they changed the outcome to the opposite direction.

This action triggered a ripple effect. Small participants, fearing defeat by a stronger force, decided to follow suit. In the end, the market result was changed—not because of the actual event, but due to financial power.

The platform later admitted the mistake but defended the action by saying it was part of the game rules. They did not change the result, even though it was clearly inaccurate.

A big question arises: does this decentralized mechanism truly offer a better choice than a centralized decision by a single authority? Or is it merely replacing one form of centralization with another—financial power instead of administrative authority?

The Conflict Over a Stablecoin: Ambiguity as a Tool

Mid-2025, a legal dispute erupted over the management of a stablecoin’s reserve fund. On the surface, it seemed like a simple money transfer dispute, but beneath was a story of systematic exploitation of ambiguity.

One party demanded a large sum be transferred to a specific fund, but the escrow account was used to send it to another address— a company they believed was unauthorized. From the first-party perspective, this was embezzlement. From the escrow perspective, they were merely executing what an “authorized representative” requested.

The core issue: no one had a publicly known real name in the role of actual owner, so no one could prove they had the right to demand repayment. Each side had a valid part of the story, but the combination created an unsolvable mystery.

A strange detail occurred in court: a key figure involved, mostly operating behind the scenes, suddenly appeared under a pseudonym during an online hearing. When the judge asked to turn on the camera, the truth was revealed. This secret act raised suspicion: is this person truly a victim of fraud, or simply unwilling to take legal responsibility?

The story is not over, but it already shows that ambiguity about identity and responsibility can be the key to unlocking any door.

A Small Player Becomes the Center of the Memecoin Game

In May, a “suicide” event was streamed live on a popular platform. The video spread rapidly, and the community expressed condolences. But before the livestream, the individual introduced a new memecoin concept: tokens that would exist forever on the blockchain after the owner’s death.

Within hours, a token related to this concept was issued and began trading. The community started to suspect: is this a marketing stunt? A leaked letter later revealed that the person had been harassed for a long time, with publicly shared addresses and personal information used for extortion. He said he wanted to withdraw, but feared that public disclosure would crash the token’s price, affecting others.

Then another twist occurred. A wallet believed to be related sold a large amount of related tokens and transferred funds to another address. Is he truly afraid and wants to disappear, or just wants to safely cash out? No one can be sure.

This event highlights how the crypto world is still unprepared to manage personal crises, where blockchain technology is only evidence, not a solution.

When the Network “Freezes” Money: Centralization Under a Different Name

A hacking incident on a decentralized exchange led to losses of hundreds of millions of USD. In two hours, an unusual event occurred: stolen funds were “frozen” on the network. Not through conventional technical measures, but by 2/3 of the network nodes agreeing not to process transactions from the hacker’s address.

It works, but it also raises uncomfortable questions: if the network can freeze a thief’s funds, why can’t it freeze anyone else’s? If I accidentally send funds to the wrong address on this same network, will I have a chance to recover it?

The debate over centralization versus decentralization here is no longer theoretical. It becomes a practical issue: do you trust this mechanism or not?

When a Pharmaceutical Company Becomes a Gateway into Crypto

A well-known electronics industry expert, famous for previous startups, returned in 2025 with a new idea: using investor funds to directly purchase crypto assets.

The plan included buying between $500 million and $1 billion worth of cryptocurrencies, managed through a mixed strategy of 80% passive and 20% active. He even managed to raise $30 million for the initial phase.

What’s notable is not the plan itself but how willing investors are to trust. After announcing, he continued to expand, even investing in other projects and announcing strategic partnerships. This confidence is not taught in ordinary business schools.

A Stablecoin Attracts and Withdraws Capital Almost Simultaneously

At the end of the year, a relatively new stablecoin faced difficulties. Surface investigation revealed a founder involved in suspicious withdrawal activities, while the project announced everything was stable.

This person’s history includes many previous projects with issues. Some failed, others are in prolonged restructuring. The question is: are these patterns of continuous re-establishment, or signs of poor management?

When Investment Funds Receive “Risk-Free” Rights

A new Layer 1 project reportedly offered a major fund a special clause: the right to recover the initial investment within a year if the token does not perform as expected. Effectively, turning a typically high-risk investment into a guaranteed one.

The project defends this decision by saying the terms are necessary to meet the fund’s requirements. But the question remains: do other investors know about this arrangement? Or is this information deliberately kept secret?

Lawyers suggest that not publicly disclosing such important information could violate securities regulations.

Lessons from These Events

Each story reflects a different aspect of Web3 in 2025. From political manipulation to internal management failures, from legal ambiguities to “safe” investment processes, all show that blockchain technology cannot automatically create a fair system.

Humans remain the most important factor. Human creativity, motives, and the ability to find new ways to exploit the system—all still exist.

2025 has proven that Web3 is not a magic solution to trust issues. It is merely a new tool, with new opportunities and new challenges.