Rug Pulls, Sextants and Pig Butchering are among the scams that have increased the most.
To avoid falling, it is advisable to verify the legitimacy of the projects and train employees.
Scams, both in the field of cryptoactive and outside it, are a form of frequent and lucrative crime that is still evolving. This puts confidence in the industry at risk, slows the adoption of Bitcoin (BTC) and digital currencies, and raises key challenges in regulation and user protection.
A new study published by the Elliptic firm – a company that attends institutions and companies in the sector in the detection of illegal activities – entitled “The state of scams with cryptocurrencies in 2025”, analyzes the current fraud trends that affect the industry.
The report indicates that, in the main economies of the world, Between 20% and 56% of scam losses are related to digital assets. And highlights the United States as a particularly extreme case.
Researchers are based on FBI data, which indicate that in 2024 the fraud in the sector represented USD 9.3 billion of a total of USD 16,600 million.
Among the modalities of fraud that have grown the most are sexorsion, the PIG BUTCHERING (prolonged romantic-financial deceptions), RUG PULLS with memecoins (projects that disappear after capturing funds) and frauds based on Deepfakes (Videos manipulated with artificial intelligence) or promises of false incentives.
At the moment, These practices use artificial intelligence tools and social networks To increase their credibility, expand rapidly and reach victims worldwide.
In addition, analysts identified two Marketplaces “Platforms or websites for buyers and vendors,” Haowang Guarantee and Xinbi Guarantee, who offered tools and services to organized scammers.
Both sites came to move more than USD 30,000 million, a figure that, as highlighted in the study, widely exceeds the business volume of drug markets in the Dark Web.
According to Elliptic, The increase in scams represents a significant challenge for control departments of virtual asset services suppliers (PSAV). More than generating skepticism, these fraud exert considerable pressure on the teams responsible for their prevention.
They also affirm that, as regulations progress, an increasing number of jurisdictions has begun to impose legal responsibilities on traditional financial institutions that facilitate paid payments to scams. Researchers believe that these obligations could be extended in the future to the PSAV.
The analysis reveals that, despite the existence of concealment mechanisms such as Mixers and privacy wallets, about 80% of the funds from scams were transferred, in the first instance, through cryptoactive service providers during 2025.
As detected, 4 out of 5 scammers choose to send their illicit profits, in the first instance, through PSAV. According to Elliptic’s analysis, these were the first destination of 76 % of the funds obtained by scams in 2024 and 80 % so far from 2025, as seen below.
The scams of the moment
The report identifies various types of fraud that have caused significant losses in the cryptoactive sector during 2024 and the first half of 2025.
Among the most prominent are the Address Poisoning (Address poisoning), scams in ATMs (ATM), frauds with Deepfakesdonation scams and incentive -based schemes.
Address poisoning is that scammers generate false wallets that mimic legitimate addresses. Thus, A user can error a fraudulent address that looks almost identical to the original and finish sending the funds to the scammer.
Consequently, analysts recommend thoroughly verifying addresses before sending or receiving funds, reviewing each character to avoid errors. They also ask to prevent transactions of very little value from appearing in user history, since this helps prevent fraudulent addresses.
Besides, ATMs in ATMs take advantage of the lack of regulation in certain countries. The criminals, going through officials or employees of public services, press vulnerable victims, such as older people, to deposit money at cryptocurrency ATMs, under false threats of cuts of services or fines.
From Elliptic, they emphasize that, in 2024, these types of scams generated losses of 65 million dollars in the United States, according to the Federal Trade Commission. They argue that it is key to educate users about common scams, such as false arrest orders or expired invoices, and promote the verification of any urgent payment request.
In addition, they ask automatic ATM platforms to apply additional checks for large transactions or new users, and collaborate with authorities to limit the use of non -regulated ATM.
To these modalities are added other forms of fraud more and more sophisticated. Scams with Deepfakes They use artificial intelligence to supplant executives or high profile clients in video callscheating the victims to authorize transactions or make payments.
To prevent these incidents, the Elliptic team recommends training both employees and users, in addition to the platforms implementing multiple verification methods.
Caution is also sought by making donations, since Some frauds take advantage of humanitarian or geopolitical crises to spread false wallets and capture funds that never reach the promised causes. These scams can also imply sanctions risks or be linked to the financing of terrorism. The firm proposes to verify the legitimacy of donation campaigns through platforms such as The Giving Block.
Other frequent scams include RUG PULLSwhere Defi projects attract investments with exaggerated promises and then disappear with funds. As Cryptonotics reported, one of the most media cases in investigation by accusation of this was that of Token Libra, which caused a political scandal in Argentina for being released by the president.
With the aim of protecting themselves from RUG PULLSThe study clarifies that investors must investigate the legitimacy of the projects, verifying the experience of the team and the structure of the Token. In addition, it emphasizes that platforms must perform rigorous audits before listing new assets.
On the other hand, the Phishing and its most sophisticated version, the ICE PHISHINGThey seek to deceive users to reveal credentials, private keys or sign transactions with malicious intelligent contracts. Scammers usually create websites, emails or profiles in social networks that mimic legitimate platformswith small variations in the URLs that go unnoticed.
The recommendation to combat phishing is to implement robust spam filters, and train users and employees in computer security to detect suspicious URLs or messages with grammatical errors.
Finally, incentive -based schemes – as Airdropspromises of cryptocurrency duplication or trading bots with exaggerated returns – seek to attract victims offering fast profits.
In many cases they use Deepfakes of celebrities or public figures to reinforce their credibility, so they ask users distrust promises of guaranteed returns or gifts that require previous payments.
