On November 10, 2026, multiple media outlets reported almost simultaneously: about 8 hours earlier, Tether exercised contract powers on Ethereum and froze a total of approximately 24.35 million USDT across 5 addresses. The security teams MistTrack and SlowMist later traced and found that at least one of these 5 addresses had previously interacted on-chain with wallets marked as "phishing/scamming" and "pig butchering" scams. The on-chain activities of these addresses can be traced back to 2021 and 2023, clearly indicating they are not newly registered accounts, highlighting the notion that existing risks are being “sorted out.” Current public information has not yet clarified whether this freeze was due to a specific case or law enforcement request, and the future of the frozen funds—whether they will be unfrozen, destroyed, or transferred to an institution—remains uncertain, but Tether's tightening of risk control measures on Ethereum is already quite clear. In contrast, another report on the same day had BitMine Chairman Tom Lee providing a completely different timeline: he believes that the crypto market prospects are optimistic in the next 24 to 36 months, and sees a tokenization supercycle led by Ethereum in 2026 that will unfold steadily and visibly on this chain, intertwining short-term on-chain risk control with long-term tokenization narratives into a rope held simultaneously by the market.
24.35 Million USDT Freeze and Unusual Trajectories
These 5 addresses are all on Ethereum, with a total of about 24.35 million USDT being locked, but they are not sudden "new accounts." Public on-chain records show that as early as 2021, these addresses began engaging in multiple transfers and other activities, remaining active in 2023, and their usage trajectory spanning several years indicates that the entities behind them have a certain operational history rather than hastily created wallets for a one-time theft or transfer. It is precisely because of this long-term trajectory that when they were jointly targeted and frozen by Tether in a short time, it appeared especially "abnormal," as if a dark line buried on-chain for years had suddenly been yanked out.
The security teams MistTrack and SlowMist's tracing provided a possible trigger point: at least one of the 5 addresses had previously interacted on-chain with wallets marked as "phishing/scamming" and "pig butchering." Against this backdrop, Tether, as the issuer of USDT, exercised its contract powers to blacklist the relevant addresses, directly blocking the outflow and further circulation of USDT on these addresses at the protocol level. For the token holders, this means that their account balances still exist, but they can no longer initiate any effective USDT transfers or transactions from these addresses; this portion of tokens has been substantively "frozen" on-chain for the foreseeable future, until external arrangements or instructions are provided.
Tether Takes Action to Intercept Scam Funds
From Tether's action to freeze around 24.35 million USDT, it seems more like a proactive risk control operation rather than a passive response. The tracking by the security teams pointed out that at least one of these 5 addresses had previously interacted with wallets marked as "phishing/scamming" and "pig butchering." In the current climate that is extremely sensitive to online fraud and compliance risks, Tether chose to directly "lock" this batch of funds at the contract level, effectively pressing the pause button on behalf of regulatory authorities, reducing the risk of potential victims continuing to have their assets transferred, while simultaneously demonstrating its willingness to stand against high-risk funds.
However, this kind of "proactive defense" simultaneously pushes USDT holders back into an old question: who truly holds the life and death power over the funds behind the scenes. Public information shows that Tether has previously frozen suspicious addresses for compliance or security reasons multiple times, but does not always disclose the ins and outs of each action; this time it similarly did not clarify whether it responded to a specific law enforcement request, who the actual controllers of the addresses are, and whether the funds will be unfrozen, destroyed or transferred to institutions remains in a state of information vacuum. The freezing action can indeed buy time for potential victims in emergency situations, but as "freezing suspicious addresses" gradually becomes a routine tool in dealing with high-risk funds, the line between protecting users and strengthening centralized control has become increasingly blurred, requiring the market to confront the long-term uncertainties brought about by this power structure itself.
Tom Lee Bets on Ethereum Tokenization in 2026
On the same day, however, the other side of the market conveyed a completely different timeframe. According to Jinse Finance, BitMine Chairman Tom Lee remains optimistic about the prospects of the crypto market in the next 24 to 36 months, believing that by 2026, a supercycle with “tokenization” as its keyword is steadily and visibly progressing. In this narrative, the current regulatory frictions and clean-up actions are merely noises that must be traversed before entering a new phase, not signals of a trend reversal.
More specifically, Tom Lee anticipates that most activities of this tokenization supercycle will occur on Ethereum—not by switching to a new chain, but by abstracting more real-world and financial assets into on-chain tokens atop the existing Ethereum settlement layer. This aligns with another crucial coordinate cited in the same report: Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin has clearly defined Ethereum as a “store of value.” If Tether's freezing actions constantly remind the market that centralized risk control power still exists on Ethereum, then the statements from Tom Lee and Vitalik aim to establish this chain as the primary carrier for future tokenized assets and a long-term value anchoring point. Within this narrative framework, Tether's freezing incident resembles a bump along the way rather than a signal of turning around Ethereum's long-term trajectory.
Collision of Short-term Risk Control and Ethereum's Long-term Narrative
Looking at this freeze through the lens of fraud clues reveals that it is more like a delayed lesson: MistTrack and SlowMist pointed out that at least one of the 5 addresses had previously interacted on-chain with wallets marked as "phishing/scamming" and "pig butchering," and these addresses had been active as early as 2021 and 2023, with potential risks only identified and frozen years later. As more assets are tokenized and deployed on Ethereum, relying solely on the notion that "the chain itself is neutral" is clearly insufficient. Issuers, security teams, and even potential future compliance collaborations are all being brought to the forefront. The reality is that this action takes place on Ethereum, but public information has not indicated that any protocol layer parameters or underlying operating models have been adjusted; security reviews still largely remain at the level of token contracts and address listings. How to implement risk control more proactively and transparently without altering the underlying consensus is a new requirement brought forth by the identity of the main battleground of tokenization.
From a trader's mindset, the freeze of approximately 24.35 million USDT is seen by some as a form of “risk clearing”: historical issues associated with scams are locked down, thereby providing a cleaner environment for the long-term narrative of "optimism in the next 24 to 36 months, with Ethereum carrying the tokenization supercycle" painted by media quoting Tom Lee. However, the same event deepens another group's concerns regarding centralized freezing powers and on-chain reviews. This short-term risk control posture conflicts with the ideal of "Ethereum as a store of value and an open tokenization infrastructure," both supporting and pulling against each other. Under the current circumstances of limited public information and no visible changes at the protocol level, interpreting this freeze as a complete denial of the long-term prospects of USDT or Ethereum, or as a direct endorsement of its long-term value narrative, is overly forceful. What truly needs to be observed is how subsequent similar events are handled, which will reshape the market's consensus on the safety boundaries and openness of this chain.
Observation Points from This Freeze
Returning to the freeze of approximately 24.35 million USDT itself, it signals to the Ethereum ecosystem, USDT users, and the on-chain security narrative that although assets flow on-chain, the issuer can "pull the plug" at any time, and the triggering conditions and interpretation rights are currently highly concentrated in the hands of a few institutions. Firstly, for the Ethereum ecosystem, this operation did not change USDT's regular usage on-chain in the short term but reminds all project parties relying on such assets to build protocols that in designing key modules like collateral, liquidation, and custody, "freezability" must be seen as a real constraint rather than a marginal risk. Secondly, for ordinary holders, the future of the frozen assets—whether they will be destroyed, unfrozen, or transferred to institutions—has not been publicly stated, and this uncertainty itself will be factored into the "institutional cost" of using a certain asset, especially when addresses are linked to "phishing" and "pig butchering" without more detailed case background. Thirdly, for on-chain security consensus, this will serve as a sample for future observations: if more freezing cases arise based on similar reasons, we will be able to more clearly judge whether Tether's risk control strategies are converging towards established rules or continually expanding the boundaries of discretion. Alongside this, it is necessary to maintain focus on two lines of inquiry: first, whether the standards and processes for identifying fraudulent funds can be more transparent and predictable, avoiding "black box" lists; second, whether Ethereum projects around tokenization can deliver sufficient concrete applications before and after 2026 to validate whether the "tokenization supercycle" described by Tom Lee is indeed a solid trend or an optimistic forecast—these three lines of inquiry will ultimately determine whether Ethereum is written as a technical prosperity or a repeatedly wavering testing ground between risk control and ideals around 2026.
Join our community, let's discuss and become stronger together!
AiCoin exclusive Hyperliquid benefits: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
AiCoin exclusive Aster benefits: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到[email protected]，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
