I just finished analyzing the on-chain data, and I feel uneasy.

Another investor hit by an "address poisoning" attack suffered a direct loss of $50 million in ETH. The sequence of events sounds frighteningly simple: during a routine transfer, he interacted with two wallets that appeared to be fine, only to find that one of them was a carefully crafted "poison address" by hackers—just a few characters off from his real address, making it nearly impossible to distinguish at a glance.

Money just disappeared like that. In one second, with one letter difference, a lifetime of savings evaporated.

What makes it even more painful is that the victims sent messages to the attackers on-chain, full of despair and helplessness – but all the cries for help could not change the outcome. This is not merely a technical issue; it resembles a high-level case about human nature, greed, and negligence.

**The truth that most people won't tell**

Such events hit like a blunt instrument, waking everyone up: in the cryptocurrency world, "controlling your own assets" actually means "bearing all the risks yourself". Accidental leakage of private keys, vulnerabilities in smart contract authorizations, phishing websites, fake interaction addresses... traps are everywhere, and any operational mistake could be fatal.

But here's the problem: aside from repeatedly reminding ourselves to "be careful, be more careful," is there no deeper solution?

**Infrastructure is key**

The answer that comes to my mind is: We need a more reliable and transparent infrastructure from the code level. This is not just a matter of technological innovation; it is essentially a trust issue—can a system minimize human error and the losses from hacker attacks to the greatest extent possible?

Think about it, if the wallet's verification mechanism is smarter, if address recognition can automatically perform multi-layer checks, if the interaction protocol itself is designed to be sufficiently redundant... can it mitigate a lot of risks?

This is also why some stablecoin ecosystems that focus on reliability and transparency are becoming more attractive. When we talk about trust, we are not discussing the commitments of a project party, but rather the design logic of the entire system—whether it is possible to see the flow of every asset on-chain, and whether the risks of the underlying protocol can be minimized.

**What should we do in reality**

In the short term, every user does need to develop a more rigorous operating habit: double-check the address before transferring, use hardware wallets, regularly check authorizations, and stay away from links of unknown origin. These are all correct.

But in the long run, the entire ecosystem needs to do more work on the underlying infrastructure. Safer wallet interaction designs, more transparent protocol mechanisms, more redundant verification... these are the solutions that can truly protect user assets.

The story of 50 million dollars will always remind us that the freedom and profits in the crypto world are built on the basis of taking risks ourselves. But this doesn't mean we should give up searching for better ways to protect ourselves. On the contrary, it illustrates why some infrastructure projects that excel in stability and transparency are worth paying attention to—they are attempting to design more reliable systems to gradually make risks manageable.