Signature Phishing Up 200% As January Losses Pass $6M

In brief

• Signature phishing victims jumped more than 200% in January, with $6.27 million stolen, blockchain security firm Scam Sniffer warned.
• Despite the spike, total phishing losses in 2025 were sharply lower than in 2024.
• Cheaper Ethereum fees after the Fusaka upgrade have made phishing tactics like mass address poisoning attacks more attractive for scammers, researchers said.

Blockchain security firm Scam Sniffer is warning of a sharp spike in signature phishing, with losses totaling $6.27 million and 4,700 wallets drained in January—an increase of 207% from December. Signature phishing occurs when attackers lure users to malicious decentralized applications that prompt them to sign off‑chain messages. While the requests appear harmless—such as approving a token deposit or listing an NFT—the signatures can instead authorize unlimited token spending or the transfer of NFTs, allowing attackers to later drain wallets.

Someone lost $12.25M in January by copying the wrong address from their transaction history. In December, another victim lost $50M the same way.

Two victims. $62M gone.

Signature phishing also surged — $6.27M stolen across 4,741 victims (+207% vs Dec).

Top cases:
· $3.02M —… pic.twitter.com/7D5ynInRrb

— Scam Sniffer | Web3 Anti-Scam (@realScamSniffer) February 8, 2026

The January surge contrasts with a broader decline in crypto phishing over the past year. Scam Sniffer reported total phishing losses of $83.85 million across 106,106 victims in 2025 on Ethereum and EVM-based chains, down 83% in value and 68% in victims compared with 2024. Losses last month were highly concentrated. Two wallets accounted for roughly 65% of the total stolen through phishing and other attacks, including $3.02 million taken through a permit and increaseAllowance attack involving SLV and XAUt tokens, and $1.08 million drained via a permit attack. Beyond signature phishing, Scam Sniffer pointed to address poisoning and permit scams as key contributors. Address poisoning attackers send tiny transactions, or dust, to targets using addresses that closely resemble legitimate ones the wallet has already interacted with. When users later copy an address from their transaction history, they may inadvertently send funds to an attacker-controlled lookalike address.  Ethereum’s Fusaka upgrade changes scam economics Researchers said tactics like address poisoning have become more attractive following Ethereum’s Fusaka upgrade, which sharply reduced transaction fees. Blockchain researcher Andrey Sergeenkov found that new address creation surged last month, with one week seeing 2.7 million new addresses, about 170% above typical levels. He said roughly two-thirds of new addresses received less than $1 in stablecoins as their first transaction, consistent with large-scale address poisoning campaigns.

Sergeenkov argued that lower Ethereum fees have changed the economics of mass poisoning attacks. While conversion rates remain extremely low, the reduced cost of sending millions of dust transactions has made the strategy viable, with profits now coming from a small number of high-value mistakes. In addition to ensuring users check transactions and make sure they understand what they are signing or where they are sending money, wallets are also trying to introduce features to limit the risk of attacks. Tara Annison, head of product at Twinstake, said wallets are increasingly adding transaction simulations, clearer warnings and pre-execution checks to flag risky interactions. “Rabby does pre-execution simulation and will warn you if you’re interacting with known malicious smart contracts or if there’s hidden logic in the transaction,” she told_ Decrypt_. Metamask, meanwhile, “gives you a nice big warning if the site you’re connecting to looks like a phishing website and includes human readable warnings if the transaction looks like it might be about to do something dodgy for your assets,” Annison said. She added wallets are placing security features like this “front and centre to avoid you signing something you shouldn’t.” Decrypt has approached the Ethereum Foundation for comment.