Phantom to Launch Phantom Chat — Security Concerns Raised Over Address ’Poisoning’
Phantom announced on X that it will introduce a new social feature called Phantom Chat. Blockchain investigator ZachXBT warned this feature could become a new avenue for asset theft, citing Phantom’s unresolved "address poisoning" issue. Address poisoning refers to malicious on-chain transaction data and UI tricks that make users copy or select lookalike addresses, leading to mistaken transfers and theft. Phantom has not yet filtered out spam or poisoned transaction records in its interface, increasing the risk that users will accidentally interact with malicious addresses when using social elements. No technical details, release date, or mitigation measures were provided in the announcement. For traders and wallet users, the main risks are increased phishing and address-replacement attacks; users should verify addresses off‑chain, enable address book/ENS checks where available, and avoid copying addresses directly from untrusted messages. Primary keywords: Phantom Chat, Phantom wallet, address poisoning, asset theft. Secondary/semantic keywords: social wallet feature, on‑chain spam, phishing, user interface risk.
Bearish
The announcement of Phantom Chat introduces a new user-facing feature without disclosed security mitigations while a known vulnerability—address poisoning—remains unaddressed. Such circumstances typically increase short-term risk aversion among traders and wallet users: users may withdraw funds from hot wallets, reduce on‑chain activity, or avoid interacting with addresses sourced from the new social feature. Historically, wallet UI or feature rollouts that expand social sharing (or integrate messaging) have briefly increased phishing and scam activity (examples: social-linking features in other wallets and browser extensions that were later exploited). In the short term this likely depresses confidence in Phantom-specific utility and could weigh on ecosystems closely associated with Phantom (wallet usage, SOL transactions on targeted chains). In the medium-to-long term the impact depends on Phantom’s response: prompt mitigations (address filtering, verification UX, signed messages, address book/ENS integration, clear warnings) could neutralize the risk and restore confidence; failure to act or subsequent incidents could cause sustained reputational damage, user migration to alternative wallets, and persistent bearish sentiment for services reliant on Phantom’s user base. Traders should monitor on-chain outflows, phishing reports, official Phantom security advisories, and any exploit incidents; implement tighter address verification and consider reducing exposure to funds held in wallets interacting with Phantom Chat until mitigations are confirmed.