2025: The year Web3 challenged all logic - Ten episodes that redefine the absurd

When reality surpasses fantasy, markets tremble. The crypto community of 2025 has written chapters that will remain in the annals as lasting lessons on trust, governance, and human nature.

Presidential meme coins: the suspicious coincidence that generated over $100 million

At dawn in 2025, meme coins linked to political figures drew global attention. Three successive launches—one by the new occupant of the White House with the ticker TRUMP, followed by MELANIA and then LIBRA promoted by a South American leader—revealed disturbing patterns in on-chain transactions.

The most controversial episode involved LIBRA: hours after launch, $87 million in USDC and SOL were withdrawn from the liquidity pool, causing a price crash of over 80%. What seemed like a simple “rug pull” turned into a geopolitical investigation when researchers linked the deployment addresses of MELANIA and LIBRA to the same entity, also implicating past failures like TRUST and KACY.

The most surprising element: a rigorous study of blockchain flows revealed that an intermediary close to the administration received $5 million to facilitate the presidential launch. When capital meets politics in a zero-sum game, the result is a “full daylight robbery” that defies all transparency conventions.

Level of absurdity: ★★★★★

When internal trust becomes the greatest enemy: the $50 million theft from Infini

February 2025 brought a bitter lesson on corporate governance in Web3. A reported “hacking” attack on the Infini stablecoin digital bank for $49.5 million proved to be something much deeper: the betrayal of a trusted developer.

Chen Shanxuan, an internal technician with maximum administrative privileges, secretly maintained control of the contracts even after development was completed. Subsequent investigations revealed that behind the theft was an obsession with derivatives and leverage trading: despite earning millions annually, he accumulated increasing debts in high-risk bets.

The paradox remains shocking: a person who brilliantly monetized technical knowledge self-destructed when transitioning from teaching to concrete entrepreneurship. The difference between knowing how to do and knowing when to stop remains the discriminant in modern Web3.

Level of absurdity: ★

The manipulated oracle: when 5 million UMA tokens overturn the “truth”

On Polymarket, a crucial platform during global election cycles, an attack redefined the concept of manipulation. A holder of 5 million UMA tokens voted for a clearly incorrect outcome in a $7 million market dedicated to diplomatic agreements, flipping the odds from nearly 0% to 100% in a few hours.

The mechanism is simple but devastating: proponents deposit collateral, a contestation period opens, but ultimately the final vote depends on the weight of UMA tokens held. A single whale influenced not only the result but also the behavior of other participants too intimidated to oppose.

Polymarket acknowledged the event but refused to correct it, considering it part of the “rules of the game.” Only months later, in August, the introduction of a whitelist reduced manipulations but did not address the fundamental architectural flaw: can a fully decentralized entity serve as a “truth machine” if even truth can be voted on?

Level of absurdity: ★★★

The 456 million TUSD: the legal labyrinth crossing Dubai Financial Centre

Misappropriation claimed on $456 million in TrueUSD reserves has led to one of the year’s most intricate legal disputes, involving jurisdictions from Hong Kong to Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC), with time zone differences further complicating communications.

The complexity lies in the corporate structure: Techteryx Ltd., registered in the British Virgin Islands, operated TUSD while TrueCoin in California managed banking relationships and reserves. An Asian market consultant turned out to be the actual ultimate owner in DIFC documents, creating ambiguity over the legitimacy of instructions.

Evidence suggests that over $456 million in additional tranches were transferred to Aria DMCC in Dubai, controlled by entities linked to the ACFF fund, without clear authorization. The crucial question remains: betrayed trust or strategic transfer to maximize returns? The fact that the declared owner has never formally identified himself in legal proceedings fuels further suspicion about true intentions.

Level of absurdity: ★★★★

Zerebro and the mysterious disappearance of the co-founder: marketing or reality?

May 2025 saw one of the most ambiguous moments in crypto history. Jeffy Yu, 22, co-founder of Zerebro, disappeared from public view after posting content that seemed to suggest a permanent farewell during a live broadcast.

Before disappearing, he conceptualized “legacy memecoin”—tokens that remain eternally locked on the blockchain after the developer’s death as digital inheritance. Suspicious coincidence: LLJEFFY was launched exactly during the crisis, and Mirror published a pre-written article with classic farewell phrases.

Subsequent revelations from KOLs and developers showed that Jeffy was orchestrating a “fake death” to escape persistent harassment, blackmail, and privacy violations by former associates. However, on-chain data showed that immediately afterward he sold 35 million ZEREBRO for 8,572 SOL, transferring most funds to LLJEFFY’s developer wallet. Tactical disappearance to recover value securely or genuine search for protection?

Level of absurdity: ★★★

When network consensus becomes censorship: the Cetus episode on Sui

May 2025 tested the fundamental principles of decentralization. Cetus, the largest DEX on Sui, was hit by a $223 million attack caused by a precision error in the code. The response was extraordinary: $162 million were “frozen” in just two hours.

The mechanism reveals a harsh reality: Sui requires the agreement of 2/3 of validator nodes to confirm transactions. In this case, node operators simply ignored transactions from target addresses, preventing them from moving. About $60 million still reached Ethereum before the freeze.

The question that divided the community remains unanswered: is this the decentralization we wanted? If a transfer error of my funds on Sui were “frozen” by a collective validator decision, should I feel safe or betrayed? The answer will determine future trust in networks promising immutability.

Level of absurdity: ☆

Conflux and the quoted dream that dissolved in a few months

July 2025 brought a familiar pattern: an emerging blockchain attempts to go public via reverse merger. Conflux announced a memorandum of understanding to acquire a company already listed in Hong Kong, Leading Pharma Biotech, promising to inject blockchain assets into the structure. Founders Lon Fan and Wu Ming became executive directors of the renamed Star Chain Group in September.

The initial fundraising of HKD 58.82 million for blockchain development collapsed by September when critical contractual conditions were not met. The stock plummeted. Further declines led Hong Kong Stock Exchange to order a suspension of trading on November 26 due to failure to meet continued listing requirements.

The episode highlights how Web3 ambitions clash brutally with traditional regulation and governance. Hong Kong remains supportive of blockchain innovation, but this outcome suggests that financial reality still outweighs technological dreams.

Level of absurdity: ★★★★

The serial entrepreneur returns to Web3 with billion-dollar prospects

August 2025 saw the launch of a bold initiative: a struggling automotive project announced entry into the crypto asset sector via a new C10 index and the “C10 Treasury” product. Despite quarterly revenues of only a few tens of thousands of dollars and losses in the hundreds of millions, the company declared plans to buy $500 million to $1 billion in cryptocurrencies.

Strategy: 80% passive investment in Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, and other major assets, plus 20% active management to generate yields. The long-term goal is to expand to $10 billion by leveraging staking returns. The first tranche of $30 million was actually invested in alternative assets with the entrepreneur personally involved as a consultant.

Recent announcements suggest collaborations with global automakers to integrate tech infrastructure. When perseverance meets access to significant financial resources, even unlikely scenarios can find fertile ground.

Level of absurdity: ★★★★☆

USDX: the business model that compresses risk to collapse

November 2025 revealed a disturbing pattern in a stablecoin project that raised $45 million at a valuation of $275 million. Researchers discovered that two suspicious addresses were systematically draining all lending pools on Euler, using USDX and sUSDX as collateral despite annual rates exceeding 30%.

Even more serious: one of the addresses was directly linked to the project founder. If the creator himself accelerated liquidity withdrawals rather than waiting for the natural redemption period, the signal was clear: the founder saw solvency issues on the horizon.

The founder’s track record added further concern. Previous projects—including a fintech and a lending protocol—had suffered significant losses during the 2022 bear market cycles. When risk management errors recur in a single entrepreneur’s portfolio, the community must ask: is this recurring bad luck or systemic incompetence?

Level of absurdity: ★★★

The protection clause of Berachain: when venture capital abandons risk

November 2025 exposed a business practice raising questions about transparency in blockchain fundraising. Documents reveal that Berachain granted a venture fund a special redemption clause on its Series B, effectively making a $25 million investment almost “risk-free.”

Structure: Nova Digital bought BERA at $3 per token in March 2024. Through a side agreement, it obtained the right to request full redemption within one year of the token launch. If BERA’s price did not reach specific levels, it could demand the entire capital back by February 6, 2026.

The legal question remains controversial: other Series B investors claimed they were not informed of this special clause, potentially violating disclosure requirements under securities law. The central issue: if venture capital bears no risk, who actually bears the consequences of failed innovation in Web3?

Level of absurdity: ★★★

Final reflections: human nature remains the true inventor of stories

2025 demonstrated that Web3, despite being technically sophisticated, remains governed by the same incentives, ambitions, and weaknesses that have driven traditional finance. The trivial errors of early crypto years—sending to wrong addresses, misconfigured parameters—have been replaced by schemes of higher sophistication: governance manipulation, strategic fund transfers, hidden side deals.

If Web3 aspires to replace the traditional financial system, it must face its greatest challenge: it is not technical, but human. Regulation, transparency, and governance remain the necessary pillars, not obstacles, for the sector’s sustainable growth.