If Section 1 saved your keys, Section 2 protects your certainty. The next traps don’t steal custody directly; they steal clarity. They arrive polished: threads that read like research, ranks that feel like progress, faces that smile but aren’t real, dashboards that never lose, “support” that sounds calmer than you are.
This isn’t about spotting malware alone. It’s about seeing persuasion as a tactic. The way “community” becomes recruitment. The way “bonus” becomes a wallet drain. The way “help” becomes a hand in your pocket. These are scams of pressure, not just of code—because most theft doesn’t happen at the wallet; it happens in your head first.
Why keep reading now: if you can be rushed, crowded, or charmed, you can still be drained without typing a seed. These chapters show you the mechanics step by step, so you can pause the film, catch the hand, and stay standing.
How to use Section 2: Same as before—How it works → Spot it → What to do → How It Plays Out → Pocket anchors. Keep your bookmarks ready; every one of these has already reached someone you know.
How it works: Paid promotion wears the costume of conviction. Individuals or teams acquire a stake, then seed a story through threads, spaces, and videos. Engagement pods and bots amplify; affiliate links or token incentives monetize the attention. The data shared is often selective (short windows, vanity metrics). The move is social first, fundamental later—or never.
Spot it
What to do
How It Plays Out
The thread arrives dressed like research: soft gray theme, tidy headers, a chart that looks like a heartbeat finding its rhythm. “Here’s the undervalued layer you’ve all ignored.” Ten tweets in, the case feels airtight—transactions up 300%, TVL up 120%, users “exploding.” At the end, a small link: “Get started.”
If you slow the film, the seams show. The transaction chart starts the week of a fee promo and ends before it expires. TVL excludes the largest outflows. “Users” means wallets that pinged a faucet once. The link—shortened—unfolds into a referral URL with a creator code. Yesterday, the same account said they were “not compensated.” Two months ago, in a different thread, they mentioned “advising” the team.
The replies feel like consensus because they’re curated to. Questions that bite—Where’s the audit? Who custody the multisig?—vanish under fan art. In the project Discord, a mod redirects source requests to “after the announcement.” The developer repo shows activity, but it’s mostly readme edits and localization strings. On the chain, the contract owners hold admin keys that can change fees without a timelock. None of these facts appear in the carousel.
You don’t need cynicism to keep your balance; you need symmetry. Open a second tab and build the opposite case yourself: What would I write if I were skeptical but fair? Look for code you can run, auditors who sign their names, holder concentration, unlock schedules, and who controls the liquidity. Compare footprints, not narratives: active addresses beyond airdrops, retention beyond day one, depth on both sides of the book. If you still like it tomorrow, act small and reversible: test a deposit/withdrawal, size like you can be wrong, and cap any leverage.
Pocket anchors: Sources or it didn’t happen. Build the counter-case. Delay by default. Size so an error is a lesson, not a spiral.