Binance Founder Targets Block Explorers Over Posting Spam
Changpeng Zhao, the former CEO of Binance, is going after block explorers like Etherscan for the way they display spam transactions from address poisoning scams. This criticism comes after Etherscan itself warned users of a particularly aggressive campaign in which one victim received 89 poisoned address emails in less than half an hour.
CZ seems to think the problem has simple solutions. He sees existing filters as viable options, specifically mentioning that the solutions already implemented in Trust Wallet “should be simple to filter them completely.” It is interesting that he is highlighting a competitor’s product here, but perhaps he sees it as a model to follow.
Fusaka upgrade linked to increased attacks
Market analysts have linked the recent rise in address poisoning attacks to Ethereum’s Fusaka upgrade, which went live on December 3, 2025. The upgrade was supposed to reduce transaction costs on the network, but it had an unintended consequence: scammers can now send large volumes of poisoned transactions at a lower cost.
The data seems to support this. Ninety days after the upgrade, Ethereum’s daily trading volume jumped 30% compared to the previous 90 days. Daily new addresses increased by approximately 78% and small value dust transfers also increased noticeably.
Etherscan acknowledges that address poisoning is not new: it has existed for years on Ethereum. But they note that recent incidents “highlight just how automated and high-volume these campaigns have become.” It’s this automation that makes them so ubiquitous today.
The economics of poisoning attacks
A study looking at address poisoning revealed something staggering: 17 million poisoning attempts targeting approximately 1.3 million Ethereum users, with confirmed losses of at least $79.3 million over approximately two years. That’s a lot of money, but what’s really surprising is how economically these attacks work.
The success rate of each poisoning attempt is incredibly low: around 0.01%. This means that only 1 in 10,000 users actually fall for the scam. But here’s the thing: the cost of thousands of failed attempts can be easily covered by a single successful attack involving large sums of money. It’s a numbers game, and scammers play it effectively.
Another unexpected finding from a study conducted in 2025 shows that different groups of attackers often compete with each other. In many poisoning attacks, multiple attackers send their poison transfers to the same address at approximately the same time. Etherscan explains that “whoever gets it right first increases the chance that their address will be copied later.” In one example they shared, 13 poison transfers were sent shortly after a legitimate USDT transfer.
Different approaches to the problem
Etherscan advises users to take certain precautions. They suggest using private name tags for frequently interacted with addresses and recommend domain names like ENS to make addresses easier to recognize in Explorer. These are practical measures, but they rely on user vigilance.
CZ, however, seems to favor a more automated approach. He points to Trust Wallet’s existing filters as a model solution. Just a few days ago, Trust Wallet introduced what they call “Address Poisoning Protection,” a security feature that checks each destination address before you send it and alerts you when something goes wrong.
The system runs automatic checks in real time using a database of known scams and similar addresses. For high-severity threats, users receive a block warning before submitting a transaction, accompanied by a side-by-side comparison of the address they are about to send to and the legitimate address it is impersonating.
This protection is available on 32 EVM chains at launch, including Ethereum Mainnet, BNB Smart Chain, Polygon, Optimism, Arbitrum One and others. CZ cites this mechanism as a good example that other wallets and explorers could emulate.
Looking ahead, CZ also expressed concerns about future microtransactions between AI agents. He predicts that AI will also need to handle spam detection in this context. This is an interesting point: if AI agents are to transact with each other autonomously, they will need robust spam filters built in from the start.
The debate here seems to be about responsibility. Should block explorers do more to filter out obvious scams, or is that primarily the wallet’s job? Etherscan provides the raw data, while wallets like Trust Wallet implement layers of protection. The answer may lie somewhere in between, with multiple layers of protection working together.
