What is this actually about?
There is one optimistic vision floating around artificial intelligence and blockchain: so-called AI agents (AI-powered programs that act independently, like a person) will manage wallets, close transactions, and move across networks on our behalf. According to BitHub.pl, though, the problem is that today's blockchain networks may not be ready for the arrival of AI agents. Handing control of a crypto wallet to a machine assumes that the environment in which the agent operates can be reliably verified.
Charliedesk looks at it differently: if verification is already failing even for experienced people and decentralized exchanges, the question of readiness for autonomous software is that much more pressing. That is why we have combined the warning about AI agents with two specific incidents from recent weeks.
How did scammers build an entire fake blockchain?
The most illustrative case is the GIWA network. According to CryptoSlate and Incrypted, scammers created a counterfeit version of the anticipated Ethereum Layer 2 mainnet GIWA (a network associated with the Upbit exchange). The fake network had its own RPC endpoint, a cross-chain bridge, and above all Chain ID 9134, the identifier the public associated with the planned launch.
The problem: the GIWA mainnet was not live at all. GIWA stated on X that claims about a leaked production RPC were false, because no production RPC exists. Its documentation lists only the GIWA Sepolia testnet with Chain ID 91342, while the production identifier is different.
It was precisely the valid, trustworthy-looking Chain ID (9134) that let the fake network pass initial verification. The decentralized exchange DYORSWAP at first treated GIWA Mainnet as genuine and only later confirmed it was a scam.
How much did it cost?
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Moved through the fake bridge | 766 to 767 ETH | Incrypted (Coin Bureau) / CryptoSlate |
| Estimated losses | over 2 million USD | Incrypted / CryptoSlate |
| Number of affected wallets | 1,333 | CryptoSlate |
| Chain ID of the fake network | 9134 | CryptoSlate / Incrypted |
According to Incrypted, DYORSWAP announced it intended to compensate affected users from its treasury funds. Whether and to what extent compensation actually happened is not confirmed by our sources as of the writing of this article.
What happened with the Zano network?
The second case shows a different type of failure. According to Cointelegraph, the Zano network was restarted after an exploit of so-called Gateway Addresses. The chain was rolled back to the block height that immediately preceded Hard Fork 6, which introduced Gateway Addresses.
A rollback (reverting the blockchain to an earlier state) is an extreme step. It shows that even a feature deployed through a hard fork can contain an exploitable bug, and that a fix sometimes means literally rewriting the network's recent history. We have not verified details about the scope of the Gateway Addresses exploit beyond what Cointelegraph reports.
What do these three things have in common?
The common thread is not one technology, but one weakness: automated trust.
- With GIWA, network identity verification failed. A valid Chain ID was enough to make the counterfeit look legitimate until money started disappearing.
- With Zano, a new feature failed so badly that the creators resorted to a rollback.
- With AI agents, the entire idea rests on a machine being able to safely evaluate the environment and act on its own.
If people and even decentralized exchanges today mistake a fake network for the real one because of a single identifier, it is legitimate to ask how autonomous software, without a human's hesitation, would hold up in such a situation. That is exactly the point BitHub.pl raises.
What to watch for with this type of incident
This is not advice on what to do with your money, but a list of what proved to be a weak point in these cases:
- Chain ID is not proof of authenticity. The GIWA case shows that a valid or expected network identifier can be abused. The difference between 9134 and 91342 decided what was real.
- The project's official channels are the primary source. GIWA refuted the leaks directly on X. Statements by third parties (including exchanges) can turn out to be wrong, as with DYORSWAP.
- A rollback is a signal, not a routine. When a network rewrites its own recent history, it is an indicator of a serious problem, not ordinary maintenance.
What we do not know yet
The BitHub.pl source summary is general and does not cite a specific technical scenario in which an AI agent would fail on a blockchain. So we do not have a confirmed case in which an autonomous AI agent actually lost funds because of a fake network like GIWA. The link between the risk of AI agents and the GIWA or Zano incidents is our analytical framing, not a documented causal connection. We are leaving that open for later verification.