Blockchain security isn't optional.
Protect your smart contracts and DeFi protocols with Three Sigma, a trusted security partner in blockchain audits, smart contract vulnerability assessments, and Web3 security.
Get a Quote Today
Introduction
Scam sites now advertise “AI trading bots” that claim to beat the market for you. The dashboards look slick and the profit charts rise smoothly, but behind the scenes no real trades happen, just fake numbers and code designed to grab deposits and vanish. In the pages that follow, we break down how these schemes create the illusion of success, how investigators trace the stolen funds, and what simple checks can keep you from falling for the next big pitch.
Bot Architecture
Scam platforms love to advertise “reinforcement-learning (RL) bots” such as DQN or PPO. In reality there are two layers of deception. First, when the operators do run any code at all, they train it only on past data until it memorises the history, so the backtest looks perfect but has no predictive power. Second, most sites skip even that step: instead of letting the over-fitted bot trade live, they simply stream invented profit numbers to the dashboard. The polished equity curve you see is therefore doubly fake: it was never the result of a robust strategy, and no real orders are being placed in the market. A typical implementation is just a WebSocket loop that sends a random “PnL” tick every second, giving the illusion of constant gains:
1const ws = new WebSocket("wss://example.com/fakefeed");
2setInterval(() => {
3 // Simulate profit drift: random swing around current PnL
4 currentPnL += (Math.random() - 0.5) * 10;
5 ws.send(JSON.stringify({ pnl: currentPnL.toFixed(2) }));
6}, 1000);In short, the “RL agent” exists only in buzzwords, actual fund flows are none. Indeed, industry advisories warn that any claim of “AI trading bots” yielding guaranteed high returns is a red flag of fraud. Fake profit screenshots and success stories proliferate on social media to lure victims, but no real market orders back them up.
Counterfeit DeFi Platforms and Cross-Chain Yield Traps
Fraudsters now leverage AI to spin up credible-looking DeFi frontends and minting sites. Scam-as-a-service operations can auto-generate professional dApp layouts or liquidity‑pool dashboards on multiple chains. For example, analysts have observed abuse of AI tools to design “scam website interfaces” en masse. These counterfeit platforms mimic legitimate protocols, often cloning real logos, layouts and testimonials, and may even instantiate fake smart‑contract frontends. As one security guide notes, scammers “create counterfeit websites or applications that closely resemble legitimate DeFi platforms… [including] fake trading interfaces”. Victims are directed to these dApps (via phishing links or social ads) and convinced to connect wallets or deposit funds, believing they are joining a real yield farm or swap pool.
To reinforce the illusion of activity, attackers use flash loans to temporarily inflate on-chain metrics. A common tactic is to momentarily boost the “Total Value Locked” (TVL) and trade volume: the scam contract takes a large flash loan, deposits it into its own liquidity pool, then immediately withdraws and repays the loan. In effect, this pumps up volume without any long-term risk to the scammer. Security researchers explicitly call out “fraudulent yield farming protocols that use flash loans to inflate TVL and attract depositors”. In pseudocode, such an inflation might be scripted as:
1function fakeTVL(address pool, uint256 amount) external {
2 flashLoan(amount);
3 depositToPool(pool, amount);
4 withdrawFromPool(pool, amount);
5 repayFlashLoan(amount);
6}The smart contract’s own backend metrics (blockchain state) now show a huge deposit and APY, fooling onlookers and API trackers, even though no real capital ever stayed locked. By deploying the same fake UI on Ethereum, BNB, Arbitrum, etc., attackers can spread multiple “clone farms,” each using flash loans on its chain to feign high usage. Victims in each ecosystem see a busy pool with high TVL and rewards, all of which vanishes when the operator pulls the rug.
On-Chain Forensics
Graph Clustering and graph neural networks (GNNs). Investigators combat these scams by analyzing on-chain transaction graphs. Every address is a node, and transactions form edges. Advanced tools apply GNNs to these structures. For example, graph convolutional networks (GCN) and graph attention networks (GAT) have been shown to separate illicit from legitimate actors with very high accuracy. In one study on Bitcoin, a GCN model achieved ~98.5% accuracy identifying illicit transactions. These models learn embeddings for each address that capture connectivity patterns (such as being a central “collector” node). In practice, a tight cluster of addresses sending funds into a single hub (and no real external activity) is a red flag. By training on known scam labels, a GNN can then flag new clusters exhibiting similar topology.
Graph representations of transactions highlight structural patterns. Each node is an address and edges are money flows. GNNs (e.g. GCN/GAT) trained on labeled data can isolate illicit clusters with high precision.
Opcode-Frequency Fingerprinting. Beyond flows, the bytecode of scam contracts often bears telltale signatures. Many fraudulent DeFi contracts are compiled from reuse kits or templates. Forensics can extract opcode-frequency vectors from a contract’s EVM bytecode and use them as a fingerprint. Prior work has shown that simple statistical features (e.g. counts of high-level opcodes like JUMP or SLOAD) combined with ML classifiers (XGBoost, random forests) detect Ponzi-style contracts with high recall. In practice, one might compute opcode counts with:
1mapping(uint8 => uint) opcodeCount;
2for (uint i = 0; i < bytecode.length; i++) {
3 uint8 opc = uint8(bytecode[i]);
4 opcodeCount[opc] += 1;
5}
6// e.g. opcodeCount[0x56] is count of JUMP instructionsThese frequency vectors can then be fed into a trained model. If the new contract’s opcode distribution closely matches known scam templates, it can be flagged instantly. Similarly, simple graph heuristics (sharing an unusual number of common neighbors or miner patterns) can cluster wallets. Combining GNN embeddings with bytecode fingerprints gives a robust forensic picture: for instance, if a cluster of addresses interacts with contracts that all share a rare sequence of opcodes, that strongly indicates a coordinated scam kit reuse. Graph-based learning (GNNs) can derive embeddings from such data, allowing tight clusters of scam addresses to be detected. Simultaneously, bytecode analysis (e.g. opcode-frequency vectors) flags contracts compiled from the same scam source.
Case Study: AI-Quant Rug Pulls (2024–2025)
Crypto analytics report a sharp rise in “AI quant” investment schemes in 2024–25. High-yield investment scams, the category that includes these AI-bot pitches, have historically been one of the top fraud drain on crypto. Chainalysis notes that HYIP schemes took in over 50% of all on-chain scam inflows in 2024. Moreover, investors lost nearly 40% more to pig-butchering and related scams in 2024 versus 2023, a surge partly driven by sophisticated “AI trading” narratives. In fact, one industry survey found roughly 60% of funds sent to scam addresses now go into schemes that explicitly leverage AI or bot marketing.
A concrete example is TetherBot.io. Launched in March 2025 with claims of an “AI-powered crypto trading platform,” it promised up to 1.25% daily returns via arbitrage and sentiment-driven algorithms. Users were shown slick spreadsheets, Zoom calls, and charts of trades across multiple exchanges. In reality, the site was centralized and non‑onchain, operating a 4‑level referral Ponzi. After only weeks, withdrawals “failed,” and the domain was quietly redirected, classic exit-scam behavior.
On-chain forensics of such cases show characteristic patterns: a flurry of deposits from many new wallets into one contract, followed by rapid fund drains to a single unknown address. For example, analysis of TetherBot’s contract activity revealed dozens of user deposits of USDT and ETH, with virtually all token transfers routed immediately to a private owner wallet. Those who attempted on‑chain withdrawals triggered only revert exceptions (the scam contract’s code only allowed the owner to withdraw).
Mitigation
The one sure defence is scepticism. Legitimate trading and DeFi projects cannot promise steady, high-double-digit returns with zero risk, so any site that does should raise an immediate red flag. Before sending funds, step back and ask three basic questions:
- Does the offer sound too good to be true? If the answer is “yes,” walk away, real markets do not deliver effortless, fixed daily profits.
- Can I verify the track record independently? Screenshots and smooth charts mean nothing unless you can trace each trade or yield event on-chain or through a regulated broker statement.
- Who is accountable if things go wrong? Anonymous teams, unclear licences, or a lack of verifiable audits leave users with no recourse.
Educating yourself to run this quick mental checklist is more effective than any technical safeguard. Scams depend on greed and haste; slowing down and demanding proof is the simplest, cheapest mitigation available.
