Ethereum User Accidentally Pays $90,000 in Gas Fees for $2,200 Transaction
An anonymous individual recently encountered a costly mishap while endeavoring to transfer Ethereum (ETH). What should have been a straightforward $2,200 transaction spiraled into a $90,000 blunder, shedding light on the potential risks associated with managing digital assets.
As per data disclosed by a pseudonymous user known as DeFiac on the social media platform X, the unidentified crypto participant expended 34.26 ETH in gas fees, amounting to roughly $89,200 at present rates, to move a mere 0.87 ETH, valued at a modest $2,262. This translates to an excess payment of more than 1,783,900% compared to the customary expense for such a transfer.
The occurrence unfolded during a period when gas fees on the Ethereum network are at their lowest levels of the year, ranging between 2 and 4 gwei. Typically, transferring ETH should incur a cost no higher than $5. This glaring disparity underscores the magnitude of the user’s blunder.
This type of error, commonly known as a “fat finger” transaction within the crypto realm, is not unprecedented. Past incidents have involved not only individual users but also established crypto exchanges.
For instance, in October 2023, an NFT trader disbursed 1,055 ETH (equivalent to $1.6 million at the time) for an NFT that was originally priced at $1,000. In another scenario, an OpenSea collector spent 100 ETH ($191,000) on a cost-free NFT mint. Additionally, in May 2021, Singapore-based crypto platform Crypto.com mistakenly transferred $7 million to an Australian user, Thevamanogari Manivel, who utilized the funds to procure a multimillion-dollar estate and forwarded around $4 million to an offshore bank account. Subsequently, she received a 209-day jail term for engaging in “dealing in the proceeds of crime.”
While such overpayments are frequently attributed to user oversight, certain experts posit that they could potentially serve more sinister purposes.
In theory, an advanced form of money laundering could involve deliberately overpaying gas fees. This scheme necessitates the user’s awareness of the Ethereum validator responsible for processing the transaction, ensuring it is submitted in the correct block. Collaboration with that validator is crucial to prevent misallocation of the funds.
Nevertheless, the likelihood of this scenario materializing is relatively slim. According to an October 2023 report by crypto staking entity Northstake, the aggregate illicit and high-risk activities on three Ethereum staking platforms and certain segments of the mainnet fluctuated between 0.46% and 1.56%.
Though these figures are modest, they raise apprehensions among regulated entities contemplating the exploration of liquid staking protocols and Ethereum-based decentralized finance.
