Web3 2025: Those "outrageous" and jaw-dropping crazy events

Do you think the stories in Web3 are more absurd than any fiction? The cryptocurrency world of 2025 has given us the answer. Let’s review the top ten “magical events” that happened this year, which not only shook market confidence but also made people rethink the industry’s bottom line.

Politicians Turned into “Spokespeople,” Behind-the-Scenes Puppeteers Rake in $100 Million

The “Presidential Coin” wave at the beginning of the year seemed dazzling but was actually turbulent beneath the surface. The tokens issued by the newly elected U.S. president and their spouse, and even the Argentine president jumping on the bandwagon, within just a few weeks, behind-the-scenes groups extracted over $100 million through carefully crafted schemes.

The most ironic part is that just spending a few million dollars on “operations” can yield hundreds of times the political halo. On-chain data shows that deployment addresses of multiple projects point to the same source, and those so-called “enthusiastic promoters” are merely organized harvesters. This exposes a brutal truth: when capital and power collide, ordinary investors are just lambs to the slaughter.

Internal “Rot”: A High-Paid Employee’s Self-Destruction

In late February, a digital bank project suffered a “hacker attack,” with nearly $50 million instantly disappearing. Initially, authorities offered rewards for capture, only to later discover that the “hacker” was actually a trusted senior engineer of the company. This employee had top-level permissions but used their position to secretly transfer funds.

Investigations revealed that this was not driven by greed but because the individual was addicted to contract trading, earning millions annually yet still heavily in debt. The seemingly perfect career collapsed entirely in the face of gambling addiction. This incident reminds us: high salary does not necessarily equate to moral bottom line; systemic loopholes are always the greatest hidden danger.

The “Democratic Lie” of Decentralized Oracles

On a well-known prediction platform, a market about international negotiations suddenly “turned around”—probability jumped from near 0 to 100%. The reason wasn’t progress in negotiations but a large holder with 5 million tokens forcibly voting to change the result.

Is this what they call “on-chain democracy”? Although the platform later admitted the mistake, they dismissed it as “part of the rules.” Ironically, when centralized fraud was exposed, they chose to make minor code adjustments rather than fundamentally fixing the problem.

The “Lost Mystery” of Cross-Border Transfers: $456 Million Suspense Case

During stablecoin reserve transfers, $456 million mysteriously flowed to an unexpected address. The entrusting party and the trustee each gave different explanations: one claimed illegal embezzlement, the other described it as a “special arrangement for security.”

The absurdity lies in the fact that the identities of the involved parties are blurred—some are unwilling to publicly admit their identities, others refuse to take responsibility. When virtual identities fail in real-world legal contexts, the victims are always ordinary users.

The “Fake Death” Drama of a 22-Year-Old Entrepreneur

In a live broadcast in May, the founder of a project claimed to “permanently withdraw”—the methods were shocking. But shortly after this “curtain call,” a new coin called “Legacy Coin” emerged, and it was later revealed that everything was a carefully scripted act.

The real twist came from on-chain data: a wallet possibly linked to the founder sold off large amounts of project tokens after “death,” cashing out over $1 million. Was this a desperate cry or a clever plan to cut leeks? It no longer matters—damage was already done.

The “Power Moment” of Public Blockchains: The Cost of Freezing Hacker Funds

After a vulnerability exploited about $223 million on a public chain DEX, on-chain validator nodes froze the hacker’s funds in less than two hours—seemingly a timely rescue, but actually exposing centralization risks.

Even more absurd, the official never clearly explained how the frozen funds would ultimately be handled. This “heroic rescue” actually raised a deadly question: when transferring on this chain, do you trust the code or just a few nodes’ judgment?

The Bizarre Script of a Pharmaceutical Company “Transforming” into a Blockchain Firm

A listed pharmaceutical company reached a “reverse merger” agreement with a project team, transforming into a “chain-based enterprise.” They even ambitiously announced a fundraising plan to raise nearly HKD 60 million. The fundraising failed, stock prices plummeted, and the company was ultimately ordered to suspend trading—this “glamorous transformation” ended up as a joke.

The “Dream Maker” Enters Crypto Investment

A once-glamorous entrepreneur suddenly announced entering the crypto space, claiming to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in mainstream coins. In a short time, he actually raised funds and even invested in other projects. What does he rely on? Storytelling ability—even though his first two startups both failed.

Another “Exit” Stablecoin Ecosystem

The founder of a stablecoin project has a history of founding multiple failed crypto ventures. This time, he chose to “bottom fish” investors—initially attracting funds through complex mechanisms, then the core addresses quietly started to escape. By the time people realized, the liquidity pool was drained, and the “management” disappeared.

This founder’s resume is no longer “entrepreneur” but “serial bankrupt.” Yet, in the inclusive environment of Web3, repeated failures have become some kind of “experience.”

Venture Capital’s “Insurance Clause”: Turning Investment into a Risk-Free Business

A Layer1 project, during fundraising, granted major investors a “special right”—if the token listing was not ideal, investors could demand a full refund. This shifted all risks onto the project team.

Later, the project claimed this was for “regulatory reasons,” but other investors were unaware. This is the current state of Web3 fundraising: the same funding round offers vastly different treatment to different investors. Transparency and fairness are just empty words here.

Lessons for 2025

These ten events seem disparate, but their core logic is surprisingly consistent: exploiting information gaps, power disparities, and cognitive biases to profit. Whether it’s politicians, executives, big investors, or project teams, when incentives are distorted, moral bottom lines become optional.

Perhaps what we should be most wary of isn’t hacking or technical vulnerabilities, but human nature itself—it’s always the most powerful “code” and also the easiest to exploit.

When navigating Web3, remember a simple rule: if a transaction sounds too good to be true, it probably is—good for others, bad for you.