Ten cases that revealed the true face of Web3 in 2025: from politics to scams

Three years ago, I already reviewed the strange stories of the crypto world. Today, Web3 looks more mature — gross mistakes with incorrect addresses are now rare. But human ingenuity is not exhausted. If earlier absurdity was the result of incompetence, now it is often a completely conscious choice.

Presidential tokens as a wealth-building tool: how manipulation turned out to be a plan

The beginning of 2025 brought an unexpected wave — world leaders were mass launching their own meme coins. At first, it seemed funny until a secret team was found to be involved in the chaos that followed.

When the wife of one president launched MELANIA, and the leader of a neighboring country introduced LIBRA, the scheme looked understandable at first glance. But analysts soon discovered something terrible: the same addresses stood behind both projects. Moreover — during the LIBRA launch, the project team instantly withdrew $87 million from the liquidity pool, causing the price to plummet by over 80%.

Using blockchain analytics, analysts traced everything step by step. One of the largest UMA holders, with 5 million tokens, managed to change the results of voting on the synthetic market Polymarket by simply manipulating votes of ordinary users who were afraid to oppose the whales of the network. Later, it turned out that one of the president’s advisors received $5 million just for promoting the token. With over $100 million in profit — this is truly a lucrative deal for insiders.

This was not just a scandal — it was a lesson about how capital and power can work hand in hand against ordinary people.

When an engineer is in love with trading: a $50 million theft due to an internal mistake

The story of the digital bank Infini began with a beautiful word — trust. One of the most talented developers gained the highest access rights to the company’s financial contracts. And then used this trust to steal $49.5 million.

The first trigger was the fact that during attempts to recover the funds, it turned out that the “hacker” was one of the leading engineers of Chen Shanxuan. A person with a six-figure annual income, who had everything needed for a prosperous future. But dependence on trading changed everything. Constant debts for gambling. Growing deficit. One night, it turned into a decision to steal millions.

The founder of the company promised to compensate all losses regardless of the consequences. But the real lesson here is not about theft, but about how even smart, talented people can fall into an abyss due to one bad habit. Trading does not lead to salvation for most — it’s a path to destruction.

Oracles as a weapon: when decentralization becomes a mask for centralization

On the synthetic prediction market Polymarket, the question about Ukraine’s agreement with the USA suddenly jumped from zero probability to 100% within hours. The logic was simple but frightening: one whale of the UMA network, holding 5 million tokens, simply voted incorrectly, and the rest of the users, fearing resistance, followed his example.

The platform acknowledged the problem but refused to change the result. According to the rules, voting is the rules. A decentralized system does not mean a fair system. Often it just means — a system where bigger fish eat smaller ones, regardless of their rights.

Later, the network tried to fix this with a whitelist mechanism. But it did not change the root of the problem: when product design allows a few large players to control the “truth,” what remains of the ideal of decentralization?

The mystery of TUSD funds: when it was truly time to go to court

The story of TUSD funds totaling $456 million is a labyrinth with no exit yet. On one side, the founder claims embezzlement. On the other — the trust company states that everything was done for asset security.

Courts in different countries issued different orders. Hong Kong rejected the investigation request. Dubai issued a freeze order on the funds. During the hearing, the founder appeared through several users, impersonating someone else. The community hesitantly asks: is this really embezzlement, or a clever game where no one wants to take legal responsibility?

The true answer probably lies somewhere in between, in the realm of shadows between officialdom and private agreements.

Fake death as an escape: when reputation management crosses the line

On a streaming platform, one of the Zerebro founders held a live broadcast that became the last for all witnesses. Rumors of suicide spread within hours. The community approved but was suspicious.

The reason for suspicion — soon a token LLJEFFY appeared. Previously, there was a manifesto about “meme coins of heritage” — an idea where the developer promises only to buy, never to sell. After death — to be permanently locked in the blockchain.

But then it turned out that the founder was alive. Letters published through Mirror told of persecution, blackmail, public disclosure of his address and phone number. He just wanted to exit. Fake death seemed safer than a regular resignation.

A wallet linked to the founder sold millions of tokens for $1.27 million. Was it a flight for safety, or just a successful exit scam — remains a question for research.

When validators ignore completely legitimate transactions: a lesson on the essence of decentralization

On the Sui blockchain, the largest DEX was hit by a massive attack: $223 million was once again taken from its owners. But something unexpected happened — the network simply froze the stolen funds.

The mechanism was brilliant in its simplicity: the network requires 2/3 of validators to approve transactions. When 2/3 just ignored all transfers from the hacker’s address, he couldn’t withdraw the money anywhere. About $162 million got stuck in the network’s vacuum.

The question now sounds paradoxical: if I mistakenly transfer money to Sui, will the network help me? Or if I am an innocent victim, can validators just ignore my legitimate transactions?

This is not a question of centralization or decentralization. It’s a matter of security and justice — and so far, the answer remains uncomfortable.

Hong Kong exchange as an adventurous theater: when reverse mergers turn into a fiasco

One of the Chinese entrepreneurs with a bright track record decided to return with blockchain. The strategy was ambitious — take a Hong Kong pharmaceutical company and transform it into a crypto-asset exchange.

Initially, the plan worked: shares grew. Then the plans to expand Series B and raise HKD 58 million failed at the last minute. The company changed its name. Shares fell even more.

In November, the Hong Kong exchange simply halted trading with the wording “non-compliance.” It was the most delicate attempt to characterize what many called outright fraud.

Lesson? When you think everyone around is naive, the first time you get lucky, the second less so, and the third time you are guaranteed a stop order.

When an accountant enters crypto: money gathered like paper ships

A finance and debt management specialist took the most straightforward path to wealth: straight into the crypto industry. His plan was bold — launch an index product on the top 10 cryptocurrencies. Then attract billions of dollars for their purchase.

Initially, he raised $30 million in the first week. Then he announced partnerships with automotive giants. His track record was filled with closed companies and under-realized projects.

This type of entrepreneur evokes both admiration and concern. The talent for raising capital is limitless, but the boundaries of competence seem very close to them.

When a founder rushes to leave the project: signs of an unhealthy state

One stablecoin, which attracted $45 million at a valuation of $275 million, suddenly started losing its peg. Investigators found that days before the disaster, addresses linked to the founder actively borrowed huge amounts of currency at astronomic rates over 30% annually to withdraw funds from the platform.

The problem was that the stablecoin could be redeemed within a day. But instead, the founder hurried to gather money and run away. The previous record of the founder’s activity included a closed lending company suffering from insolvency, and another project that gradually disappeared from the market.

When one failure can be bad luck, but three — it’s already a pattern. And often, this pattern is called an inside job, just well disguised as misfortune.

Venture investments without risk: when special rights become ordinary fraud

One Layer-1 project secretly granted a venture group the right to exit at the original price. This meant that $25 million of investments practically guaranteed a return regardless of how the project develops. For other investors in the round, this information, as it turned out, was a secret.

When venture investing ceases to be investing and becomes a guaranteed return of capital for selected, then there can be no talk of fairness.

The project denied this information, but lawyers pointed out: if such rights really exist, the company is obliged to disclose this information to all participants. Failing to do so may violate disclosure requirements for material information.

This is not just a clever game — it may border on securities fraud.