Recently, there was a case on-chain that is quite frightening: a large investor wanted to transfer 50 million USDT, but ended up falling into the trap of address poisoning, losing everything within an hour.

The matter is as follows. He first conducted a small test transaction, which was successful with no issues at all. A few minutes later, he copied the "same address" from the transaction records to prepare for a large transfer. Little did he know, the money went directly into a "poison address" forged by a scam group. The whole process was like playing Russian roulette; it looked normal, but the result was deadly.

This incident reflects a painful reality: in the blockchain world, what seems "right" can actually be an illusion, with the cost being a permanent loss every second. While we are shocked by this huge loss, we need to think about deeper questions — can we really ensure asset safety just by visually comparing addresses? Is it possible to design a more robust mechanism from the technical architecture level, so that the whole transfer process itself has built-in protection, rather than relying so much on "absolutely perfect operation"?

This issue actually points to an important track in the cryptocurrency field: the design concept of stablecoins. A good stablecoin project should not only focus on price anchoring but also consider how to make users' asset interactions safer and harder to attack. For example, some projects prioritize transparency, verifiability, and mechanism security equally with "price stability" when building decentralized stable systems. Although this design cannot prevent you from mistakenly copying the wrong Address, it can indeed create a more reliable and reassuring underlying environment through ecological strengthening and innovative concepts.