Fat-finger transactions are not unheard of in the crypto space. Time and again, users have lost funds owing to negligence on their own part.
As blocmates reported a day back, a particular user ended up shelling close to $90k to process a transaction worth merely $2.2k.
Sometimes, this route is used to launder funds as well. Users tie up with known validators and shrewdly overpay the fees, knowing it will be brushed under the carpet under the pretext of fat fingering.
DeFiac — who first identified the transaction — ruled out the possibility of the $90k being associated with siphoning. To rewind, the user initiated a transfer between two addresses. The transaction was identified and included in block number 20508049 within five seconds.
In a conversation with blocmates, the blockchain explorer enthusiast affirmed,
“Almost certainly not. The validator for block 20508049 was a Coinbase validator. Therefore it is very likely that this was just a fat finger.”
DeFiac further pointed out that the user is not a new entrant into the crypto ecosystem, and elaborated,
“The wallet has been receiving ETH from Nanopool since 9th December 2017. ETH was trading at ~$450 back then.”
As a rule of thumb, users are expected to make sure they double-triple verify the numbers before processing transactions to avoid making such errors.
DeFiac highlighted that it is always better to use UI wallets tailored to different levels of technical expertise. They offer a range of features right from simple, user-friendly designs to more advanced options for experienced users.
In fact, they auto-handle the gas amount and other sections. “You can always check the settings to be sure,” DeFiac said.
Cautioning users who initiate transactions via code/script, DeFiac said,
“I highly recommend simulating your transactions on a fork before sending it to the mainnet. This way, you can see exactly what your transaction will do.”
Several posts on X have been floating around highlighting that the user can get back funds from the validator. However, it should be noted that validators are not bound to refund funds that stem from users’ errors.
Opining on whether the fee recovery is an option in this case, DeFiac underlined that “Coinbase has no obligation to return funds [to the user]. They also have an obligation to their stakers,” which means they ought to act in their best interest.
In all, the fat-finger transaction mishap list now has a new entrant. August has given us another yet another event to remember — and just like the flash crash, this ain't sweet either.
