Stable Pre-Deposit Error Leads to $2.34 Million Loss for Over 60 Wallets
## Executive Summary
Over 60 cryptocurrency wallets collectively lost more than $2.34 million during **Stable's** second phase pre-deposit activity due to users incorrectly entering the contract address as the receiving address, impacting user confidence in the platform.
## The Event in Detail
During **Stable's** second phase pre-deposit campaign, a significant error led to over 60 user wallets misdirecting funds, resulting in a total loss exceeding $2.34 million. Users mistakenly input the contract address instead of the correct receiving address for their deposits. **Stable**, a Layer 1 blockchain focused on stablecoin transactions, recently initiated its second pre-deposit campaign. This initiative allows users to deposit stablecoins, primarily **USDT**, to earn future rewards linked to the network's upcoming native token and ecosystem incentives. The first phase of this campaign saw an $825 million deposit cap reached within approximately 22 minutes.
The rapid filling of Phase 1 sparked controversy, with multiple **X** users alleging front-running and "insider" participation, citing on-chain data showing large wallet clusters depositing funds prior to the official announcement. This limited retail participation and led to negative community feedback. For Phase 2, **Stable** announced measures such as a per-wallet deposit limit and individual wallet requirements to prevent large deposits from single entities, although it did not directly address the Phase 1 controversy or explicitly guarantee simultaneous access for all participants. Despite these adjustments, the recent misdirection of funds underscores persistent challenges in user interaction and communication within complex decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols.
## Market Implications
The $2.34 million loss directly impacts user confidence in the **Stable** platform and raises critical questions about user error prevention mechanisms within DeFi protocols. Such incidents contribute to negative market sentiment and can deter broader adoption of new DeFi initiatives. This event occurs within a year marked by substantial losses across the crypto sector. By mid-2025, cyberattacks and scams had already cost the industry over $3.1 billion.
Notable incidents include the **Balancer** exploit in November 2025, which saw over $100 million in digital assets stolen from its **V2 Composable Stable Pools** due to a rounding-error vulnerability impacting tokens like **osETH**, **WETH**, and **wstETH** across **Ethereum**, **Polygon**, and **Base**. Other significant breaches include a $1.5 billion loss by **Bybit** in Q1 and a $223 million hit in the **Cetus** exploit. Access control failures accounted for approximately 59% of funds lost, totaling $1.83 billion, while smart contract vulnerabilities contributed an additional $263 million. These figures highlight the pervasive security challenges, ranging from sophisticated exploits to fundamental user mistakes.
## Broader Context and Security Measures
The ongoing series of security incidents and user-related financial losses underscores the evolving landscape of digital asset security, emphasizing the need for both technological resilience and improved user education. Industry experts consistently advocate for enhanced security and compliance measures to mitigate such risks. Recommendations include robust smart contract security practices, comprehensive risk controls, and leveraging regulatory sandboxes. Beyond standard audits, practices like formal verification and continuous code reviews are crucial.
Implementing internal governance protocols to monitor unusual on-chain activities and potential exploit patterns, along with employing tools like **OpenZeppelin's SafeMath** to prevent arithmetic vulnerabilities, are considered essential for securing DeFi ecosystems. The incident with **Stable** reinforces the necessity for clear user interfaces, unambiguous instructions, and potentially built-in safeguards to prevent common user errors, alongside the more complex technical security measures.
