Cases of crypto asset losses due to wallet “drains” have once again become a major concern within the crypto community. Many users assume these incidents are caused by blockchain hacks. However, based on various reports and analyses, most cases actually occur because users unknowingly grant malicious access to their wallets. This typically happens through interactions with phishing websites, unlimited contract approvals, or the leakage of sensitive data such as seed phrases.

Chronology and Common Patterns of Wallet Drain Cases
Based on community reports and crypto security education, wallet drain incidents tend to follow similar patterns. Victims are usually exposed through convincing links, whether from ads, direct messages (DMs), or Telegram groups.

After accessing such sites, users are typically prompted to connect their wallets and perform actions like “Sign” or “Approve.” Unknowingly, these actions can grant smart contracts permission to access assets in the wallet.

Some of the most common causes include:

• Connecting a wallet to phishing sites that mimic legitimate platforms
• Failing to read transaction details or messages before signing
• Granting unlimited approval to contracts
• Being deceived by professional-looking and seemingly official websites
• Leakage of seed phrases or private keys
• Devices infected with malware or malicious extensions
• Rushed decisions driven by FOMO (Fear of Missing Out)

In many cases, a single click on “Confirm” or “Sign” is enough to give attackers access to gradually move assets without further approval.

Analysis of Causes and Security Vulnerabilities
Technically, blockchains like Ethereum or other networks are not directly hacked. Smart contract mechanisms function according to their code. The primary vulnerability lies on the user side.

One commonly exploited method involves features like Permit or Permit2, which allow token transfer permissions without requiring additional on-chain transactions. If a user grants unlimited approval to a malicious contract, their assets can be accessed at any time.

There is also an important distinction between “safe” and “dangerous” sign messages:

• Safe sign: typically used for login or wallet ownership verification
• Dangerous sign: may contain hidden authorizations such as transfers, approvals, or order creation

Warning signs of risky signatures include technical data (hex), keywords like “Approve,” “Permit,” or “Transfer,” and requests with unclear purposes.

According to blockchain security analysts, the increasing complexity of dApps and a lack of transparent user experience (UX) make less experienced users more vulnerable to such manipulation.

Impact on Users and the Ecosystem
Wallet drain cases have a direct financial impact on users, with losses in some incidents reaching thousands to millions of dollars. When converted, this can amount to tens of millions to billions of rupiah, depending on the value of the lost assets.

Beyond individual losses, this phenomenon also leads to:

• Decreased trust in the Web3 ecosystem
• Increased caution toward new dApps
• Greater demand for security tools such as wallet warnings and approval checkers

On the other hand, these cases also accelerate user education regarding digital security, especially in the use of non-custodial wallets.

Conclusion
Wallet drain cases highlight that the greatest risk in the crypto ecosystem often does not come from blockchain technology itself, but from user interactions. As phishing techniques and manipulation tactics become more sophisticated, users must adopt stricter security practices.

Basic steps such as separating main wallets, carefully reviewing transaction details before signing, limiting approvals, and storing seed phrases offline are essential to mitigating risks.

In a broader context, user education and awareness remain crucial factors in safeguarding assets in the increasingly complex Web3 era.