Top 10 "Absurd Events" in the 2025 Web3 Market: From Politicians' Tokens to Internal Theft, Outrageousness at an All-Time High

The story of Web3 is always more exciting than fiction. From political figures' token scandals at the beginning of the year, to veteran developers' embezzlement cases, and the out-of-control stablecoins, 2025 has witnessed new heights of “creativity” in this industry.

Behind the Scenes Manipulation of Politicians' Tokens: Over $1 Million in “Legal Plunder”

Earlier this year, a newly elected president issued a meme coin related to himself, followed by official family members and a leader from a South American country also launching related tokens. On the surface, it seemed like a small-scale P2P game, but the subsequent sharp price drop revealed a darker truth.

Investigations by on-chain analysis firms show that the deployment addresses of these two tokens are closely linked to multiple historical rug pull projects, seemingly controlled by the same behind-the-scenes team. Ironically, among the advisors of that South American leader, someone received $5 million in “compensation” for promoting the token on social media—this amount was just a small part of the embezzled funds.

Warning: When political power intersects with crypto capital, the victims are often retail investors who “believe in politicians.” This incident also exposes serious flaws in project review processes within some mainstream public chain ecosystems.

From Genius Developer to Scammer: $50 Million Embezzlement by Internal Staff

A well-known digital bank experienced a bizarre theft— a reputable core developer exploited his highest privileges to steal nearly $50 million from a lending protocol.

Ironically, this engineer, earning a six-figure salary, was driven to risk due to addiction to derivatives trading and mounting debts. After completing development, he did not transfer permissions as required but secretly retained control over the smart contracts. The project team initially attempted blockchain negotiations, even offering to settle if 80% was returned, but ultimately resorted to police prosecution.

Warning: Even in high-paying fields, human weaknesses like gambling addiction and debt are deadly. This reminds project teams that permission management and employee background checks cannot be just on paper.

The “Illusion of Democracy” in Prediction Markets: Whale Manipulation of Oracle Results

On a popular prediction platform, a market regarding a geopolitical agreement was suddenly reversed— a whale holding a large amount of governance tokens single-handedly voted to change the outcome.

Although a whitelist mechanism was later introduced to reduce such manipulation, the core problem remains: what is called “democratic voting” is actually “dictatorship by whales.” Ordinary users, afraid to oppose whales, are often forced to follow the trend, leading to a false consensus.

Warning: Decentralized governance under “whale concentration” is merely a new bottle for old power games.

The “Trust Crisis” Behind Stablecoins: $456 Million Mysteriously Transferred

The reserves of a well-known stablecoin experienced a bizarre “transfer”— the $456 million originally allocated to a specific fund was moved to an unknown private company. The project team claimed it was for asset security, but court documents show the transfer lacked proper authorization.

Even more absurd, during an online court hearing, an agent suddenly turned on their camera— and it was revealed that this person was the actual controller of the project— previously claiming to have “no official identity” to evade responsibility. This “hide-and-seek” legal game raises suspicion: is it regulatory negligence or deliberate deception?

Warning: The “trust” in stablecoins is fundamentally based on the moral commitments of centralized institutions. When controllers start hiding their identities, trust is already broken.

The Art of “Fake Death”: Young Founder’s Escape Plan

A 22-year-old co-founder of a project claimed during a live stream that he wanted to “end his life,” and the community circulated a “suicide” video. However, days later, a mysterious “will” was posted on the blockchain— it was a carefully planned disappearance.

Leaked letters reveal that the founder decided to “disappear” after long-term harassment, extortion, and threats. But subsequent on-chain analysis found that within days of his “death,” wallets associated with him transferred large amounts of tokens, cashing out over $1 million.

Was it genuine fear and escape, or a meticulously designed “exit”? Blockchain transparency contrasts with human opacity.

Warning: Extreme pressure combined with financial freedom can lead to drastic choices. But using “fake death” to escape will ultimately be exposed by on-chain data.

Centralized Salvation of Public Chains: Controversy Over Freezing Hacker Funds

A well-known Layer1 blockchain was hacked, with $223 million stolen. Shockingly, the chain directly voted via nodes to “freeze” the hacker’s address within 2 hours.

Technically, this demonstrated the chain’s “efficiency”— two-thirds majority nodes could veto any transaction. But it also completely overturned the core promise of blockchain: immutability. If today “good reasons” can justify freezing hacker funds, tomorrow, could “bad reasons” justify freezing your assets?

Warning: “Emergency centralization” is always a moral trap for blockchain. Once this door is opened, decentralization becomes a joke.

The Hot Investment Trap: Founders’ “Risk-Free” Investment Rights

A Layer1 project offered a “privilege” to venture capital funds during fundraising— if the token price drops, investors can demand a full refund of their initial investment. Essentially, this shifts all risk onto other investors.

Even more ironically, the project team did not disclose this clause to investors in later rounds. Such asymmetric information disclosure would have long been penalized to bankruptcy in traditional securities markets.

Warning: The “flexibility” of Web3 fundraising often evolves into a breeding ground for information asymmetry. Investors should learn to ask: do you really understand how many “hidden terms” are behind the project you invest in?

Old Tricks in New Variations: From Real Estate to Crypto “Funding Shows”

A once-famous entrepreneur in real estate suddenly announced entering crypto asset management— claiming to deploy billions of dollars to buy mainstream cryptocurrencies within weeks.

Eye-catching tactics (including rumors of collaborations with well-known car companies) and promises of rapid fundraising, this old script is played out on a new stage. But the fundamental financial logic remains unchanged: where is the real capital?

Warning: Strong fundraising ability does not equal project capability. A repeatedly failing entrepreneur entering a new field is often not about innovation but about rebooting the fundraising story.

The Domino Effect in Stablecoin Ecosystems: Founders Rushing to Exit

After xUSD faced setbacks, internal anomalies in a stablecoin project raised alarms— the project team was still rushing to borrow at over 30% annual interest and quickly cash out through DEX operations.

Even more troubling, these operations were directly linked to the wallets of the project founders. If even the founders are eager to cash out, what can ordinary investors believe in?

Warning: The behavior of founders is always more truthful than official statements. When the project team starts rushing to liquidate, it’s often the final warning signal.

Epilogue: The “Human Drama” of Web3

The common thread among these 2025 events is that behind the absurdity lies human nature. Greed, fear, power, desire—these eternal themes are amplified a thousand times on the blockchain stage.

Blockchain should be a “trust machine” built on mathematics and code, but the ultimate weak link is always human. From politicians to developers, from investors to founders, everyone finds their own “rationalization” in this game.

The greatest irony is: we build blockchain to eliminate trust, yet discover that no matter how perfect the technology, human nature remains the biggest vulnerability.