In 2025 in the crypto market: costly lessons from hundreds of millions of dollars in losses

How major investors paid the highest price for volatility and misplaced trust

2025 will go down in history as the year when crypto whales discovered that no matter how large the wallet: the decentralized market spares no one. From reckless derivatives bets to social engineering scams, from supply chain vulnerabilities to physical thefts, this narrative represents the dark side of an industry where money is abundant but caution is scarce.

The realm of leverage: when profits become ghosts

From pop star to “liquidation champion”

Huang Licheng, also known as Machi Big Brother—an influential artist from the '90s who disappeared from the Asian music scene, a pioneer of hip-hop in Chinese productions—turned his billionaire status into a lesson on greed. Three months were enough to wipe out nearly $67 million of his wealth.

In September, Machi held winning positions with unrealized profits exceeding $44 million. In September-October, the collapse of some altcoins' prices caught him off guard. He did not realize the profits. Instead of managing the losses, he doubled down with massive leverage on ETH (between 20x and 25x), holding between 7,000 and 30,000 tokens in long positions.

The result? Between November 1 and 19, he suffered 71 liquidations—almost 4 per day. The pattern repeated constantly: deposit, liquidation, deposit, liquidate again. In the end, he accumulated $21.2 million in losses, a catastrophic decline that transformed him from a success icon into a symbol of uncontrollable volatility.

The $1.25 billion bet that melted like ice

James Wynn represents the other side of excess: the meteoric rise followed by the inevitable crash. He built a fortune of $50 million through meme coins, but that was not enough. In May 2025, when Bitcoin hit $110,000, Wynn opened a long position of $1.25 billion with 40x leverage—a figure exceeding the reserves of many nations.

A minor correction below $105,000 turned his fortune into rubble. In one week, the loss reached nearly $100 million. After the initial crash, he attempted recovery in November by shorting, but continued to fail: 45 liquidations in two months, with 12 in just 12 hours on the worst day.

The traps of spot positions and trust

Those who buy the dip end up submerged

A famous whale known for its bearish arbitrage had built a profit of $24 million through strategic shorts. But the desire to “profit both on the rise and fall” led to disaster. After closing shorts on November 5, he began aggressively accumulating ETH, withdrawing 422,000 tokens from an exchange in 9 days and paying an average of $3,413 per unit.

He also used $485 million in on-chain leverage. When the price fell below $3,000, his “buy the dip” strategy turned into a deadly trap. Unrealized losses reached $133 million. With debts of $480 million, the whale was forced to liquidate 177,000 ETH and deposit 44,000 tokens on an exchange to sell at a loss, realizing an actual loss of $125 million.

The obsession with meme coins

Another investor burned $3.598 million chasing Chinese meme coins during the October 2025 peak. He had accumulated $4.49 million in a series of tokens on parallel blockchains, becoming the seventh-largest holder of one of these assets, paying up to $0.3485 per unit.

The market offered multiple opportunities to exit, but the conviction of holding “diamond hands” paralyzed him. After 8 days, the value dropped 56.5%. Instead of liquidating, he kept buying during rebounds. In early November, he faced reality: he liquidated everything in 50 minutes, incurring $3.6 million in losses on a single coin.

When code isn't enough: sophisticated attacks

The “double key” in the same safe

Whale Babur had adopted the multisig Safe wallet, considered the industry standard for security. The theory is solid: multiple signatures, maximum protection. But he made a fundamental mistake: he kept both private keys on the same computer.

When he clicked on a compromised file (“poisoning”), the malware easily stole all credentials. In a few hours, $27 million disappeared. The hacker laundered the funds through mixing tools. The lesson is harsh: no advanced security technology can protect against basic human error.

The “11 minutes disappeared” during the party

Suji Yan, co-founder of a Web3 privacy platform, was celebrating his 29th birthday on February 27, 2025, when a Kafkaesque turn of events occurred. He was at a private party with friends when he went to the bathroom, leaving his smartphone unattended.

In just 11 minutes, an attacker transferred $4 million from his public wallet, quickly converting the funds into ETH and splitting them among 7 addresses. Suji later confirmed: “I trust my friends, but for anyone it would be a nightmare.” The vulnerability was not the code: it was the assumption that a social smartphone is a safe place to store private keys of hot wallets.

From hacker to victim

An “unknown hacker” who had stolen large sums during March and August tried to speculate with the stolen funds. But market makers proved more ruthless than any malicious code. In early October, he bought 8,637 ETH at $4,400 (about $38 million total).

Ten days later, during the mid-October correction, he panicked and liquidated everything at $3,778, losing $5.37 million in a single trade. The next scene was even more comical: an hour after cutting losses, seeing a rebound, he bought back 2,000 ETH. The market dropped again. In two weeks, he accumulated $8.88 million in trading losses due to impulsive trading.

The physical threat: when cybercrime becomes robbery

The San Francisco mansion and the robber's gun

Lachy Groom, a well-known tech investor, discovered that decentralized assets offer no protection against physical threats. One November Saturday, a robber disguised as a courier entered his San Francisco mansion. Under threat of a gun, tied with duct tape, and beaten, he was forced to reveal his passwords.

In 90 minutes, $11 million vanished from his wallet. According to available data, in the last three years, attacks of this kind against crypto holders have increased significantly, with about 60 cases recorded in 2025 causing tens of millions in losses worldwide.

The “poisoned” supply chain

A common investor, seeking maximum security, decided to buy a hardware wallet from a popular e-commerce platform during a promotion. He didn't know the device had been tampered with before sale and the private key was already compromised.

When he deposited 50 million RMB (about $7.08 million), he was actually transferring