#稳定币市场与应用 Seeing this "address poisoning" incident, I am reminded of the ICO chaos in 2017. Back then, we saw too many stories of total loss due to a small oversight—only now, it’s a contract vulnerability; this time, it’s a fatal flaw in UI design.

50 million USDT was lost just like that, and it all started with an ellipsis. The display format like 0xbaf4b1aF...B6495F8b5 created a perfect trap between security and convenience. Phishers generated addresses with identical start and end, used 0.005 USDT as bait, and users copied hastily—human weaknesses exploited precisely.

From my years of experience, I’ve learned one thing: the security issues of stablecoins often aren’t in the coins themselves but in every link of the usage scenario. USDT, DAI, these tools are designed for liquidity, but the more convenient they are to move, the easier they are to misuse. This money can instantly be converted into DAI to prevent freezing, then into ETH, and finally washed through Tornado— the more fluid the entire chain, the smoother the escape route for bad actors.

The community foundation only now calls for stopping the use of ellipses, honestly, it’s a bit late. But it also reflects a reality: the security of infrastructure is often only prioritized after incidents occur. The contract audit black hole of 2017, and now UI design flaws— fundamentally, they are the same problem— we only remember to patch after bleeding.

Looking ahead at the stablecoin ecosystem, preventing low-level but effective attacks like address poisoning depends on thorough UI improvements by wallets, browsers, and exchanges, and more importantly, on users developing habits of full verification. Balancing convenience and security will always be the industry's most difficult choice.