Web3 Chaos 2025: When "If I steal, I’ll steal millions" Becomes Reality

The cryptocurrency market of 2025 has witnessed one jaw-dropping “creative event” after another. From the token games of the highest authorities to large-scale embezzlement by internal staff, from oracle manipulation to “zero-risk design” in fundraising, this year has been a textbook example of human nature’s performance in the face of利益.

Let’s review the most “representative” Web3 absurd dramas and see what the market has truly taught us.

The Marriage of Power and Capital: The Political Figures Meme Coin Storm

At the beginning of the year, a token issuance event involving multiple high-ranking figures shocked the market. Family members of a country’s political leader and officials from neighboring countries issued tokens related to them, attracting countless participants. However, within hours, these tokens experienced a price crash—one token’s liquidity pool was rapidly drained of $87 million in a single incident.

On-chain data analysis revealed a sophisticated “team” behind it—multiple deployment addresses of tokens were highly interconnected and linked to addresses involved in numerous historical rug pull events. Market commentary called this “a family-style criminal group earning over $100 million in a month.” Ironically, some government officials received millions of dollars in rewards from it.

Insight: What does the lack of regulation mean when power holders directly participate in token issuance?

Internal Betrayal: The 1.27 Million Times Cost of Trust Collapse

A well-known digital asset platform experienced a “house thief” incident—an engineer with top-level permissions embezzled $49.5 million.

Further investigation found that this engineer was once a model employee of the team but fell into despair due to personal gambling addiction. Despite earning millions monthly, he lost everything in contract trading. Overwhelmed by debt, he finally took risks, using his position to retain control over contracts that should have been transferred.

This was not just simple “greed”—it was a complete downfall of a person in the face of addiction.

Insight: High salary doesn’t always save someone who has gone astray.

The Oracle Democracy Paradox: 51% Truth

In March, a decentralized prediction market was manipulated artificially. A holder with a large amount of tokens used voting power concentration to push the probability of an “impossible” event from near zero to 100%.

Even when the platform later admitted it was a “mistake,” it refused to correct it citing “the rules themselves.” Months later, the project made some adjustments through a whitelist mechanism. But the underlying issue remains: is decentralized voting truly more trustworthy than centralized judgment?

Insight: The result of democratization can sometimes be the majority’s lie.

The Secret Transfer Cloud: The Disappearance of $456 Million

In an international legal confrontation, a famous entrepreneur accused a trust institution of embezzling massive reserves. The truth was elusive—court documents showed:

• The reserves were initially authorized to be transferred to a certain fund
• But the actual destination was another private company
• The involved trust claimed it was “a safety consideration”
• The claimant, due to complex identity, could not directly declare ownership

This “family business vs. trust institution” lawsuit is ongoing, and $456 million remains frozen. Interestingly, during a remote court hearing, a mysterious “Bob” appeared—later found to be the claimant himself.

Insight: In power games, ambiguity of identity itself is a risk.

Virtual “Will”: Farewell and Rebirth

A 22-year-old co-founder of an AI project performed a shocking act during a live broadcast—rumors say he ended his own life publicly. The video spread widely on social platforms, and mourning followed.

But the truth soon surfaced: it was a carefully planned “virtual death.” The young man, exhausted by long-term harassment, racial discrimination, and identity threats, found it hard to express himself openly. To safely leave the public eye, he chose this extreme method—using a special token product to “permanently record” his departure.

On-chain tracking revealed he emptied his holdings afterward, gaining millions of dollars. Whether he was forced to flee or carefully cashed out remains a mystery.

Insight: In the face of online violence, some choose to disappear.

The Centralized Dilemma of “Frozen Rights”

A DEX was attacked by a flash loan of $223 million. Surprisingly, the platform “frozen” the stolen funds within two hours.

How was this achieved? Collective action by nodes on a certain public chain—refusing to process any transactions from the attacker’s address. It was like a “blockchain review” with warmth, but also raised deep questions:

• Why only freeze for this incident?
• What about users who lost funds due to personal errors (like mistaken transfers)?
• Is this “flexible relief” or “arbitrary intervention”?

Node operators ultimately denied any pressure, but the damage was done.

Insight: In decentralized systems, consensus can become “selective justice.”

From Listed Companies to Blockchain Gamblers

A traditional pharmaceutical listed company suddenly announced entry into crypto—acquiring a Layer1 project. Through a series of clever capital maneuvers, the founder became a board member and raised funds in the listed company’s name.

The plan was to acquire crypto assets, participate in staking, and earn compound interest, targeting a $1 billion scale. The initial round promised to deploy $30 million within 30 days.

Initially, the stock price rose but then collapsed. fundraising targets were missed, stock halved, and the company was forced to halt trading. A “tech transformation” story turned into an absurd farce.

Insight: The sweet talk of capital can sometimes be collective hypnosis.

The “Proactive” Risks of Stablecoins

A co-founder of a stablecoin project has “rich experience”—the previous three projects faced serious difficulties. This time, he chose an innovative “leverage strategy.”

On the surface, users’ stablecoins were used to buy other crypto assets, promising returns. In reality, through a series of complex lending operations, the founder’s related addresses were quietly cashing out.

More ironically, these funds could theoretically be redeemed at any time—but no one did, because no one knew. Until data analysts exposed the truth, the “stablecoin” began to lose its peg.

Insight: Repeated failures on a shiny resume might not be “bad luck.”

VC’s “Zero-Risk” Game

A well-known Layer1 project offered a top-tier VC special treatment during fundraising: investing $25 million with unconditional repayment at original price within a year.

What does this mean? The fund turned high-risk investments into guaranteed arbitrage. When the token price fell below the purchase price, they could demand a refund; when it soared, they continued holding.

The project team claimed this was “compliance requirements.” But other investors said they were never informed of this special clause. This involves legal issues of disclosure—conflicting interests should be made public.

Insight: Under the guise of Web3 “democracy,” some are playing “privileged financing.”

Conclusion: If You Steal, Just Steal a Few Million

The Web3 of 2025 hasn’t become more “reliable”—it has only become more “professional.” From the days of rookie brawls to today’s carefully laid traps.

The combination of power, capital, and information asymmetry has made this emerging market a direct showcase of human greed. Behind every absurd event lies participants’ scheming and luck.

The most “successful” cases are often not because they are smarter, but because they dare more. In a space with regulatory gaps and blurred morals, “if you steal a few million” is no longer a joke—it’s a guiding principle for some.

The real issue isn’t Web3 itself, but what we have allowed and will continue to allow.