# "smart contract" (exploit OR hacked OR drained) — X 热门讨论 (2026-10-10 03:39 UTC)
## @superpobe (POBE 🎀) · 10-10 02:51 · ♥22 ↻0 💬23 Address poisoning doesn't always exploit a smart contract
Sometimes, it exploits a habit
You send a small test transaction, then later copy an address from your history. An attacker has already slipped a lookalike address into that history, hoping you won't notice the difference.
That's a nasty weakness in crypto UX: users are expected to recognize long strings of characters under pressure.
@AmericanFort_io is trying to reduce that dependency with Send-to-Name.
Instead of repeatedly copying a raw address, you send to a human readable @name, while supported integrations can resolve it to a fresh receiving address.
That could remove one common opportunity for address confusion.
But it isn't a universal shield against scams. Users still need to verify recipients and use trusted wallets.
Better security shouldn't rely entirely on humans spotting tiny differences in a 42 character string. https://x.com/superpobe/status/2108752286168092678