Stable's second phase pre-deposits exceed $250 million! Sixty wallets mistakenly transferred $2.34 million, resulting in a loss.

On-chain analytics platform Lookonchain has monitored that the second phase of Stable’s pre-deposit amount has exceeded $253 million. At the same time, over 60 wallets mistakenly input the contract address as the recipient address during the deposit process, involving over $2.34 million. Although the $825 million cap for the first phase was reached within about 22 minutes of opening, it faced accusations of front-running.

Stable Second Phase Pre-Deposit Rules and Institutional-Grade Vaults

On November 7, Hourglass announced in a post that “the minimum deposit window of $100,000 for the second phase of Stable’s pre-deposit activity will be extended by at least one hour.” This extension demonstrates the team’s commitment to fairness, trying to give more users a chance to participate. Focused on stablecoin trading, Stable, a Layer 1 blockchain, partnered with Hourglass to introduce institutional-grade vaults. By collaborating with a top-tier investment bank with deep experience in the crypto market, they aim to create up to $500 million in USDT liquidity for the Stable network.

Rules for the Second Phase Pre-Deposit Activity

• Scale: Accepts qualified deposits totaling up to $500 million
• Deposit Token: USDC (with withdrawals in USDT0 assets)
• KYC Verification: All wallets must complete identity verification
• Wallet Limit: Each verified user can bind only one crypto wallet
• Maximum Total Deposit: No official cap, but only KYC-approved deposits up to $500 million qualify for the activity
• Minimum Deposit: $1,000

Stable states that although the pre-deposit activity uses USDC, each deposit will be converted on the Stable network into net new USDT, thereby expanding the on-chain liquidity of the entire ecosystem. The logic behind this design is that Stable is a blockchain optimized specifically for USDT, using Tether’s USDT as the native token for paying transaction fees and enabling gas-free peer-to-peer USDT transfers.

Supported by USDT0, Stable’s team is developing a high-performance network optimized for USDT payments and decentralized applications (dApps). This positioning differentiates Stable from other general-purpose Layer 1 blockchains, focusing on the vertical niche of stablecoin payments.

Lookonchain monitoring shows that the second phase pre-deposit amount has surpassed $253 million. While this is lower than the $825 million raised in the first phase, the stricter KYC requirements and wallet restrictions in the second phase make reaching $253 million a sign of strong market interest. Additionally, the $500 million total cap for the second phase has not yet been reached, indicating the activity is still ongoing.

Over 60 Wallets Mistakenly Transferred $2.34 Million — A Painful Lesson

(Source: Lookonchain)

Over 60 wallets mistakenly sent funds to the contract address instead of the intended recipient address, involving over $2.34 million. This large-scale error highlights a common yet critical mistake in crypto operations. Contract addresses and recipient addresses look identical—both are strings starting with 0x followed by 40 characters—but serve entirely different functions.

Contract addresses are locations where smart contracts are deployed on the blockchain, used to execute logic, not to receive or hold tokens. Sending tokens to a contract address that isn’t designed to accept or transfer tokens can result in the funds being permanently locked in the contract, unrecoverable. This is often called “sending funds to nowhere,” leading to a total loss of the assets.

(Source: Lookonchain)

The 60 wallets involved lost an average of about $39,000 each. This indicates that the impacted users are not only retail investors but likely include some large holders or institutional players. For crypto newcomers, distinguishing between contract addresses and recipient addresses is a fundamental but easy-to-make mistake. Many pre-deposit activities provide both the contract address (for reference and verification) and the actual recipient address (for transfers). Confusing the two can lead to significant losses.

Key Steps to Avoid Mistaken Transfers

• Carefully read official instructions: Confirm that the provided address is the recipient address, not the contract address
• Test with small transfers: Send a small amount first to verify receipt before transferring larger sums
• Use official interfaces: Operate through the project’s official frontend rather than manually inputting addresses
• Double-check addresses: Before confirming, verify that the address’s first and last few characters match the official announcement

It’s currently unclear whether the Stable team will compensate users for these mistaken transfers. In traditional finance, bank transfer errors can often be rectified; on the blockchain, once confirmed, transactions are irreversible. Unless the contract owner has built-in recovery functions and performs special operations, these funds are permanently lost. Some projects may choose to offer partial or full refunds for PR reasons or community trust, but this depends entirely on the project’s voluntary decision.

First Phase 22-Minute Flash Sale Sparks Front-Running Allegations

The first phase of Stable’s activity, with an cap of $825 million, was fully subscribed within about 22 minutes of opening. Such rapidity is rare in crypto pre-deposits and indicates extremely high enthusiasm. However, multiple users have accused the first phase of front-running, pointing to on-chain data showing most deposits came from a few large wallets that transferred funds before the official announcement.

Front-running in crypto refers to exploiting informational or technical advantages to execute transactions ahead of others, gaining unfair benefits. In the case of Stable’s first phase, if front-running occurred, it could involve: insiders leaking the exact opening time; automated bots monitoring blockchain events and acting before the official announcement; or certain large players with special relationships with the project gaining early access.

Community members have expressed dissatisfaction, feeling that the participation space for ordinary users was severely limited. When most of the quota is gobbled up by a few whales, the activity loses its “community participation” essence and becomes a game for big players and insiders. This can harm the project’s long-term community building and decentralization.

The Stable team appears to have recognized these issues. In the second phase, they introduced stricter KYC, limited each user to one wallet, and adopted more transparent rules. These measures aim to reduce front-running and allow more regular users to participate. However, participation in the second phase has been significantly lower—$253 million compared to $825 million in the first—possibly reflecting community disappointment over the controversy in the initial phase.

Stable’s Technical Positioning and Market Potential

Supported by USDT0, Stable’s team is developing a high-performance network tailored for USDT payments and dApps. This niche focus is innovative in the current blockchain landscape, where most Layer 1 platforms aim to support a broad range of applications. Stable’s emphasis on stablecoin payments sets it apart.

Using Tether’s USDT as the native token for transaction fees and offering gas-free USDT transfers could significantly lower barriers for stablecoin usage, addressing a common pain point in blockchain adoption. If Stable can realize truly gasless USDT transfers, it could greatly enhance usability.

Close ties with Tether and centralized exchanges are core advantages. Tether’s USDT is the largest stablecoin globally, with a market cap exceeding $120 billion. Official support from Tether would bolster Stable’s liquidity, technical integration, and compliance.

Although the current activity uses USDC for deposits, all funds will be converted into net new USDT on the network, expanding on-chain liquidity. A $500 million liquidity pool is substantial for a new Layer 1, supporting initial ecosystem development and applications.

However, Stable faces fierce competition from established Layer 1s like Solana, BNB Chain, and Polygon, which already have large stablecoin ecosystems. To attract users and developers, Stable must offer clear advantages in user experience and performance. The controversies from the first phase and mistaken transfers also impact its brand reputation. Trust and community sentiment are critical; mishandling these issues could hinder long-term growth.