Ten moments that marked chaos in Web3 during 2025

Sometimes, reality surpasses any imaginable script. Three years ago, I documented the most peculiar events in the blockchain ecosystem. Today, after reviewing what happened in 2025, I observe that although basic technical errors have decreased, the level of absurdity remains intact—the human nature continues to find creative ways to surprise us. The following events are ordered by their impact, with analyses reflecting the personal perspectives of the observer.

When political power crosses with meme coins: The case of the 100 million disappeared

The plot

Earlier this year, the launch of presidential tokens captured worldwide attention. First was TRUMP, then MELANIA in January, and finally LIBRA in February 2025. What started as a curiosity ended as a scandal of historic proportions.

The breaking point occurred when, a few hours after LIBRA’s launch, a mysterious team withdrew 87 million dollars in USDC and SOL from the liquidity pool, causing a price collapse of over 80%. The event generated widespread outrage, especially when subsequent investigations revealed connections between MELANIA, LIBRA, and previous rug pull projects like TRUST, KACY, and VIBES.

Most revealing: on-chain fund flow analysis showed that the same address controlled both presidential tokens. Further investigation uncovered Kelsier Ventures as the central actor, while KIP Protocol insisted it only supervised technology. Eventually, it was revealed that a close associate of the Argentine president received 5 million dollars to promote the token on social media—a transaction that multiplied the initial investment by 20.

Why this event matters

It’s the clearest example of how capital and political influence can converge to orchestrate what some call “a daylight robbery.” When traditional institutions and speculative money mix without oversight, powerless participants are exposed.

Impact level: ★★★★★

When trust is broken from within: The theft of 50 million

What happened

On February 24, a digital stablecoin bank reported a “hack” of 49.5 million dollars from its vaults on liquidity platforms. The founder publicly acknowledged the incident and promised full compensation. The team issued an on-chain ultimatum: return 80% and there will be no legal pursuit.

But here’s where it gets truly surprising. After formal investigation, it was revealed that the “attacker” was not an external hacker, but Chen Shanxuan, a talented engineer with maximum permissions in the company’s infrastructure. Exploiting his trusted position, he kept secret access to contracts after completing his development work.

Motivation? Derivatives trading addiction. Despite earning millions annually, he accumulated increasing debts by trading with leverage, which led him to desperately need liquidity.

The implicit lesson

Crypto project founders often hire exceptional talent but make mistakes by delegating maximum permissions without clear transitions. The gap between “monetizing technical knowledge” and “operational work” requires greater oversight.

Complexity level: ★

The manipulated oracle: When money rewrites reality

The incident

In March 2025, a popular prediction platform was manipulated through its oracle. In a market of over international negotiations valued at 7 million dollars, a whale with millions in governance tokens voted against factual evidence simply because it would lose money on the opposite position.

The mechanism works like this: proposers submit data and deposit collateral; others can challenge with the same amount; finally, governance token holders decide. A whale with 5 million in governance voted for the wrong outcome, creating a demonstration effect—ordinary users, afraid of facing concentration of power, joined in, causing the final result to be incorrect.

The platform acknowledged the error but refused to revert, arguing that rules were followed. Subsequent governance improvements added whitelists, though without changing the fundamental architecture.

The uncomfortable question

Can we call it decentralization when a participant with enough capital can alter verifiable truth? Oracles are trust machines; ignoring such obvious errors is a design failure.

Complexity level: ★★★

The mystery of 456 million: Administrative error or embezzlement?

The tangled situation

In April, during a conference, a crypto magnate accused a fiduciary institution of illegally transferring 456 million dollars in reserves. The court rejected his initial request, but courts in another jurisdiction issued freeze orders.

The complexity lies in the structure: a Caribbean entity controls the protocol, but a Californian company historically managed the reserves. A Hong Kong institution acts as custodian. The magnate appears as “advisor” in public documents but as “beneficial owner” in private hearings—duality that exploits jurisdictional gaps.

According to his version, funds intended for a Caribbean fund were diverted to a Dubai-based company controlled by a third person. According to the custodian institution, it only followed instructions from “authorized representatives” and could return funds upon request of the true controller.

Most revealing: in a hearing where the magnate was not supposed to attend because he was not the legal representative, he appeared anyway, fueling speculation whether the “embezzlement” is real or a procedural tactic.

Why it’s instructive

When international transactions cross multiple jurisdictions, clarity disappears. Financial intelligence can become a vulnerability if one seeks to exploit regulatory ambiguities.

Complexity level: ★★★★

When a co-founder disappears from the public sphere

Event context

In May, a very young co-founder of a project went through a traumatic experience publicly transmitted. He had previously proposed innovative concepts about “inherited cryptocurrencies”—tokens where developers commit not to sell, leaving assets locked as “digital legacy.”

What followed was confusion: was the disappearance real or a marketing strategy? The suspicious timing—just before launching a new related token—fed speculation. Later, investigators found signs that he sought to withdraw from the public eye due to harassment, data leaks, and extortion by malicious actors.

However, subsequent analysis showed that on the same day, wallets linked to the individual sold significant amounts of project tokens, transferring funds to wallets of the new token’s creator.

The persistent ambiguity

Did he disappear out of genuine fear or to execute a secure transaction out of scrutiny? The truth remains between real victimization and position liquidation.

Complexity level: ★★★

The centralization that shouldn’t exist: Funds frozen on a blockchain

What happened

In May, a decentralized exchange platform on the Sui blockchain suffered an exploit that drained 223 million dollars. Surprisingly, in just two hours, the platform announced it had “frozen” 162 million of the stolen funds.

How does one freeze something on a supposedly decentralized network? The answer is uncomfortable: Sui requires consensus of 2/3 of nodes for transactions. Validators simply ignored selectively the attacker’s transactions, blocking their movements. Only funds transferred to Ethereum escaped this lock.

When asked how they would recover the funds without the attacker’s signature, engineers spoke of “recovery code,” but validators denied having received it.

The pertinent question

If I make a mistake transferring funds on this blockchain, would I receive the same consideration? Or does this “exception” only apply to publicly embarrassing events? The double standard suggests that decentralization is selective.

Complexity level: ☆

When a pharmaceutical project reinvents itself as a blockchain

Corporate strategy

In July, a listed company in Hong Kong announced a “reverse takeover” with a Layer 1 project. Usually, startups acquire listed companies; here, it was reversed. The founders of the blockchain project became CEOs.

The company raised 58.82 million in local currency through share issuance, changed its name to “Star Chain Group,” and promised to capitalize on the Web3 boom. Theoretically, the stock should soar.

Theoretically.

The funding plan collapsed due to non-compliance. The price fell. After the name change, it fell further. Eventually, the stock exchange ordered suspension of trading for continued non-compliance.

Why it’s relevant

Hong Kong was diplomatic in suspending for “failure to meet continued listing requirements.” Although the jurisdiction supports Web3, operations like these seem to take everyone for fools. Financial maneuvers cannot replace solid fundamentals.

Complexity level: ★★★★

When desperation becomes a capital strategy

The event

In August, a well-known entrepreneur’s electric vehicle company announced a new product: a “cryptography index” and an associated “treasure,” formally entering the crypto sector with the goal of raising between 500 million and 1 billion in initial investments.

The model: 80% passive investment, 20% active, with promises of sustainable returns through staking. The company also invested 30 million in a biotech firm to help it “transform into crypto,” positioning itself as a personal advisor.

Recently, collaboration with globally recognized electric vehicle manufacturers was announced, including access to charging infrastructure and potential cooperation in autonomous driving technology.

The observation

Some entrepreneurs have a special talent for reinventing themselves. We don’t give five stars just to reserve that honor for political magnates manipulating meme coins.

Complexity level: ★★★★☆

When a stablecoin collapses from within

The crisis

In November, a stablecoin was identified as a victim of systemic manipulation. A social media user discovered that although only one day was needed to redeem tokens used to mint the stablecoin, suspicious addresses completely drained the available liquidity pools, leaving immobilized debts across multiple platforms.

Most revealing: one of those suspicious addresses was directly linked to a project co-founder. If insiders literally drained liquidity, what’s the alternative explanation for serious operational issues?

Further investigation revealed that the same co-founder had led previous projects that suffered insolvency in earlier bear markets, with one disappearing entirely from the market after compromising its lending infrastructure.

The historical lesson

History shows that we learn little from it. Entrepreneurs fail and try again—understandable. But when risk management errors are systematically repeated, is it coincidence or pattern?

Complexity level: ★★★

When venture capital seeks to eliminate risk

What happened

In November, leaked documents revealed that a Layer 1 project offered a major investment fund a special guaranteed reinsurance clause, effectively turning a 25 million investment into almost “risk-free.”

The co-informer insisted that the clause only existed if the token was not launched—regulatory compliance measure. The fund, according to him, remains a major investor and has even increased its exposure.

However, documents show that the clause guaranteed full reimbursement if the price fell during the first year after launch. Other investors in the same round claimed they had not been informed of this “special protection.”

Lawyers pointed out that hiding “materially relevant information” from other participants could violate disclosure standards in securities regulations.

Why it matters

If the architecture is real, it was essentially used to leverage the reputation of a major fund for speculation, bordering on fraud. Do we still naively believe that Web3 can self-regulate without structured oversight?

Complexity level: ★★★

Final reflection: Patterns in chaos

The events of 2025 reveal a clear pattern: as technical infrastructure matures, vulnerabilities change. While basic technical errors diminish, institutional, governance, and human behavior issues emerge.

The ecosystem accumulates capital but not necessarily wisdom. Each new cycle attracts fresh participants who repeat historical mistakes in new forms. The question for 2026 is not whether additional “absurd” events will occur, but whether the industry will learn lessons or simply continue operating as a machine generating extraordinary stories and massive losses.