#稳定币 50 million USDT is gone just like that. After reviewing the entire case, I really have to reflect on one question: When managing stablecoin positions on exchanges, is our safety awareness a bit lax?

Phishers use addresses with the same first and last three digits to inject malicious links. Victims simply copy the address from the transaction record and send—this is not a technical issue, but a matter of operational habits. After so many years of copying trades, my biggest fear isn't choosing the wrong trader, but rather that the hard-earned profits will have issues during withdrawal. So now, every time I transfer stablecoins like USDT, I must compare the entire address thoroughly—no matter how troublesome, I verify each digit.

The key is that now the UI design of wallets and browsers actually increases the risk—ellipsis truncation of addresses looks convenient, but it actually hides a potential danger. The victim was asked to return the funds within 48 hours and was offered a $1 million bounty. This approach is quite interesting; it incorporates white-hat incentives.

For copy-trading players, the lesson is straightforward: position allocation and strategy review are important, but the security of the final step of fund transfer cannot be neglected. I now keep a set of "cold wallet withdrawal SOP" even for high-risk accounts, strictly following it like a stop-loss rule—no exceptions.

Stablecoins seem stable, but the liquidity process is the most vulnerable to failure. This lesson of 50 million USDT is worth everyone remembering.