Changpeng Zhao (CZ) has proposed a significant change involving gas fees for transactions on the Binance Smart Chain (BSC), sparking community interest.
Users who transact on the Binance Smart Chain pay a BSC gas fee, with CZ now calling for a significant reduction to the standing rate.
Will Binance Smart Chain Reduce BSC Gas Fees?
Any user who has ever transacted on the Binance Smart Chain has undoubtedly paid a BSC gas fee. It refers to the transaction fees required to process transactions on the BSC network.
The gas fees are paid in BNB, the powering token for the Binance ecosystem, and the native crypto of Binance Smart Chain.
Meanwhile, data on Bitbond shows gas fees of 1.3 Gwei or $0.017 for a 15-second fast transaction speed.
Users looking for normal speeds of up to one minute pay 1.1 Gwei or $0.014 in gas fees. Slow transactions of up to three minutes require a gas fee of 1.0 Gwei or $0.013.
Still, there have been times when BSC gas fees jumped, adding up quickly for arbitrage traders.
Notably, the amount of gas fees required for a transaction depends on the complexity, size, and network congestion at the time of the transaction.
Binance founder and former CEO Changpeng Zhao wants the rate revised, sharing the proposal in a post on X (Twitter).
“Let’s reduce BSC gas fees? by 3x, 10x?,” CZ posed.
Binance Users React: Will Lower Gas Fees Drive More Activity on BSC?
Notably, BSC gas fees are generally lower than on the Ethereum network. This makes BSC popular for decentralized applications (dApps) and transactions.
“Hey CZ, much appreciated, but as I use BSC chain most of the time, I have rarely felt that I’m paying any fee, like it’s too minor sometimes free,” one user remarked.
While CZ considers reducing BSC gas fees, he remains cognizant of the challenges of low gas fees. Against this backdrop, he refuted suggestions for zero gas fees.
CZ cites the role of validators and builders, who maintain network integrity and security by processing transactions, preventing double-spending, and ensuring trustless operations.
“Lots of spam, and also need to consider validators and builders,” CZ challenged.
The absence of gas fees would overwhelm the network due to a lack of cost deterrence, a common issue in blockchain systems.
To some, however, the adjustment would be a game-changer, benefiting decentralized finance (DeFi) and gaming, among other sectors. Others advocate for continued BNB burns for ecosystem growth.
“BNB burning from fees is good for BNB growth. No need to reduce,” another user wrote.
Meanwhile, it is worth mentioning that lower BSC gas fees could draw significant volume and activity. Recently, Tron founder Justin Sun advocated forlowering the costs, hoping to attract more traffic to the Tron blockchain.
“IMO, lowering fees and raising the energy cap won’t hurt TRON’s profitability. The fee cut should drive transactions to 20 M+ daily in three months, expanding market share and boosting profits. More energy will also encourage TRX staking for free transfers,” Sun stated.
He also spearheaded energy cap adjustments and reduced SunPump gas fees by 50%, lowering transaction costs to encourage greater user adoption.
Amidst these efforts, TRON’s revenue surged to record highs, placing it first among all blockchains at the time.
Social engineering scams are on the rise, and these exploits have particularly targeted Coinbase users throughout the first quarter of 2025. According to a series of investigations by ZachXBT, users have lost over $100 million in funds since December 2024, while annual losses reached $300 million.
After sorting through the complaints made by different users, BeInCrypto spoke with Coinbase Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) Jeff Lunglhofer to understand what makes users vulnerable to these kinds of attacks, how they happen, and what’s being done to stop them.
Gauging the Seriousness of Scams Affecting Coinbase Users
Throughout the first quarter of 2025, several Coinbase users fell victim to social engineering scams. As the leading centralized exchange in a sector where hacks are becoming more sophisticated with time, this reality is no surprise.
In a recent investigation, Web3 researcher ZachXBT reported on several messages he received from different X users who had suffered major withdrawals from their Coinbase accounts.
1/ Over the past few months I imagine you have seen many Coinbase users complain on X about their accounts suddenly being restricted.
This is the result of aggressive risk models and Coinbase’s failure to stop its users losing $300M+ per year to social engineering scams. pic.twitter.com/PjtX7vmjqc
On March 28, ZachXBT revealed a significant social engineering exploit that cost one individual close to $35 million. The crypto sleuth’s further investigations during that period uncovered additional victims of the same exploit, pushing the total stolen in March alone to more than $46 million.
In a separate investigation concluded a month earlier, ZachXBT revealed that $65 million was stolen from Coinbase users between December 2024 and January 2025. He also reported that Coinbase has been quietly grappling with a social engineering scam issue costing its users $300 million a year.
While Coinbase users have been particularly vulnerable to social engineering scams, centralized exchanges, in general, have also been significantly impacted by these increasingly sophisticated attacks.
How Does The Broader Context Reflect This Situation?
Public data regarding the evolution of social engineering scams in recent years is limited and somewhat outdated. Yet, the numbers in the available reports are staggering.
In 2023, the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) under the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) released its first-ever cryptocurrency report. Investment fraud constituted the largest category of cryptocurrency-related complaints, representing 46% of the nearly 69,500 complaints received, or approximately 33,000 cases.
The FBI’s IC3 reported an increase in crypto-related scams in 2023. Source: IC3.
Investment fraud, or pig butchering, involves false promises of high returns with low risk to lure investors, especially crypto newcomers driven by a fear of missing out on significant gains.
According to the IC3 report, these schemes rely on social engineering and building trust. Criminals use platforms like social media, dating apps, professional networks, or encrypted messaging to connect with their targets.
In 2023, these investment scams resulted in losses of $3.96 billion for users, representing a 53% increase from the previous year. Other social engineering scams, like phishing and spoofing, further constituted $9.6 million in losses.
Coinbase scammers tend to create fake emails that appear legitimate using cloned website images and false Case IDs. They then contact users through spoofed calls, leveraging private information to build trust before sending them these deceptive emails.
Once scammers have convinced users of the interaction’s legitimacy, they exploit the situation to persuade them to transfer funds.
The increasing sophistication of these scams illustrates both the emotional manipulation involved and the particular vulnerability of the victims. They demonstrate that centralized exchanges are often the primary platforms for these exploitations.
ZackXBT’s investigations and user reports on X reveal a gap between the extent of social engineering scams and Coinbase’s apparent management effectiveness.
Public discussions indicate that Coinbase has not flagged theft addresses in common compliance tools.
Victims of scams and users whose funds were frozen are urging Coinbase to take stronger action against this growing and costly issue. Understanding how these scams take place is essential to effectively addressing them.
How Are Coinbase Users Made Victims?
In January, a victim contacted the investigator after losing $850,000. In that instance, the scammer contacted the victim from a spoofed phone number, using personal information likely obtained from private databases to gain their trust.
5/ They then sent a spoofed email which appeared to be from Coinbase with a fake Case ID further gaining trust.
They instructed the victim to transfer funds to a Coinbase Wallet and whitelist an address while “support” verified their accounts security. pic.twitter.com/pOTQpnMfCz
The scammer convinced the victim that their account had suffered multiple unauthorized login attempts by sending them a spoofed email with a fake Case ID. The scammer then instructed the victim to safelist an address and transfer funds to another Coinbase wallet as part of a routine security procedure.
Last October, another Coinbase user lost $6.5 million after receiving a call from a spoofed number impersonating Coinbase support.
The victim was coerced into using a phishing site. Eight months earlier, another victim lost $4 million after a scammer convinced them to reset their Coinbase login.
ZachXBT raised concerns about Coinbase’s lack of reporting the theft addresses in common compliance resources and their perceived inadequate handling of the escalating social engineering issue.
In a conversation with BeInCrypto, Jeff Lunglhofer, Coinbase’s Chief Information Security Officer, shared his version of the events.
Coinbase CISO Addresses Social Engineering Scams
Despite Coinbase’s clear understanding of the widespread harm caused by social engineering scams affecting its users, Lunglhofer stressed that the broader crypto community should address this problem collectively rather than entrusting the responsibility to a single entity.
“In the context of the broader social engineering challenge that’s out there, of course, Coinbase customers are impacted. We’re keenly aware of it. We’ve been rolling [out] a number of control improvements to help protect our users, and, I think more importantly, we are working with the broader industry to bring these ideas and these control uplifts across the industry, across all crypto exchanges, across everything,” Lunglhofer told BeInCrypto.
Coinbase’s CISO referenced the exchange’s collaborative efforts with other platforms to combat this problem in his reply.
Specifically, Lunglhofer pointed to the “Tech Against Scams” initiative, a partnership with industry players like Match Group, Meta, Kraken, Ripple, and Gemini to fight online fraud and financial schemes.
Lunglhofer also added that Coinbase takes a similar approach when flagging theft addresses.
Why Coinbase Handles Theft Addresses Differently
When BeInCrypto asked Coinbase why it doesn’t publish theft addresses across popular compliance tools, Lunglhofer explained that the exchange has a different procedure for these scenarios.
“We will communicate with other exchanges directly [and] let them know the addresses that we’ve seen where assets have been withdrawn,” he said, adding that “when we see that there’s, in fact, fraudulent [activity], we will pull back all the wallets that are associated with the fraud and we’ll push those out to the other exchanges that we have communications with,” he said.
Lunglhofer also mentioned Crypto ISAC, an intelligence and information-sharing group established by Coinbase in collaboration with various other crypto exchanges and organizations to distribute information related to scams.
Coinbase’s Struggle Against the Flood of Spoofed Content
Lunglhofer admitted that the number of spoofed emails Coinbase identifies or receives in the form of reports far exceeds the exchange’s capacity to take them down.
“Regrettably, they’re a dime a dozen. I can open ten of them in five minutes. It’s super easy to do. So there’s not a lot we can do about that. But, when we identify them [or when] a customer reports them, we do have them taken down,” he said.
Coinbase uses vendors to eliminate circulating spoofs or phishing campaigns in those instances.
“We have several vendors that we use to do takedowns. So anytime we see a fraudulent phone number pop up, anytime we see a fraudulent URL [or] a fraudulent website get established, we will issue those for takedown. We’ll use our vendors to work with the DNS providers and others to bring those down as quickly as possible,” Lunglhofer told BeInCrypto.
Although these preventative measures are essential for the future, they provide minimal recourse for users who have already lost millions of dollars to scams.
Whose Responsibility Is It? User vs. Exchange
Coinbase did not respond to BeInCrypto’s inquiry about developing an insurance policy for users who lost savings to social engineering scams, leaving their approach in this area unclear.
Yet, social engineering scams are complex, relying on significant emotional manipulation to build trust. This complexity raises questions about the degree of responsibility that falls on user vulnerability versus potential shortcomings in the centralized exchange’s user protection measures.
The broader cryptocurrency community generally agrees that more educational materials are necessary to help users distinguish between legitimate communications and scam attempts.
Regarding this issue, Lunglhofer clarified that Coinbase will never call users out of the blue. He also noted that Coinbase has recently implemented different features that act as warnings for users potentially interacting with a scam.
Furthermore, the CISO cited a ‘scam quiz,’ an educational tool that appears as a real-time banner when a user is about to undertake a transaction flagged as suspicious by the exchange.
Though this feature is an advantage, its ability to protect users is hard to quantify, especially regarding how efficiently it flags suspicious activity. Coinbase did not respond when BeInCrypto asked if the exchange internally tracked data related to social engineering scams.
A similar issue arises with Coinbase’s ‘allow lists.’
The $850,000 Coinbase Loss
Coinbase offers a feature that enables users to create a safelist of approved recipient addresses to help prevent transactions to unfamiliar or unverified addresses. Lunglhofer strongly urges Coinbase users to adopt this measure.
“We offer every retail customer the ability to create ‘allow lists’ for wallets that they’re permitted to transfer assets to. On my personal account on Coinbase, I have ‘allow listing’ turned on, and I only have three wallets that are allowed,” Lunglhofer detailed.
However, the $850,000 scam loss suffered by a Coinbase user in January, as revealed by ZachXBT, shows a critical limitation of safelists.
Even after a victim adds a theft address, manipulation leading to this addition can still occur, thereby neutralizing the intended protection.
Can Coinbase Do More to Protect Users?
Sophisticated social engineering scams are a growing threat, creating significant challenges for crypto users. Coinbase users and centralized exchanges in general are particularly affected.
Despite Coinbase’s outlined efforts, the significant financial losses highlight the limitations of current industry-standard measures against determined scammers.
While cooperation is crucial across the board, Coinbase, as a leading platform, must also put more proactive efforts and resources into educating its users.
Social engineering is predominantly a user-driven issue, not a security failure for any exchange. Yet, platforms like Coinbase have the critical responsibility to lead industry-wide initiatives to address these threats.
The millions lost are a stark reminder that vigilance and collective action are paramount in safeguarding users against these increasingly refined and frequent attacks.
Conor McGregor, the former UFC champion, has entered the crypto scene with the launch of a new memecoin dubbed REAL.
Despite the star power behind it, REAL is off to a sluggish start, struggling to attract investor interest in a memecoin market that is still reeling from recent scandals.
Conor McGregor’s REAL Token Raises Just $218,000
Announced on April 5, McGregor unveiled his plans to disrupt the digital asset space, claiming he had already changed the fight, whiskey, and stout industries.
“I changed the FIGHT game. I changed the WHISKEY game. I changed the STOUT game. Now it’s time to change the CRYPTO game. This is just the beginning. This is REAL,” McGregor announced on X.
According to the project’s website, the team opted for a sealed-bid auction model to launch the token, aiming to prevent bot manipulation and create fairer pricing.
Under this system, participants submitted bids using USDC. Successful bidders would receive REAL tokens based on a clearing price, while those who didn’t meet the mark would be refunded.
“The auction will be open for 28 hours, after which a single clearing price will be determined. Tokens will be locked for 12 hours after auction close to facilitate a snipe-free deployment of on-chain liquidity. Proceeds from the auction will seed this pool and fund the DAO treasury,” the project added.
However, the community’s response to the project has been underwhelming. The team aimed to raise $3.6 million, with a minimum threshold of $1 million. As of press time, the auction has raised just $218,000, far below expectations.
Several issues appear to be fueling investor hesitation. Critics have called out the token’s short unlock window, warning that it creates ideal conditions for rapid sell-offs.
Others raised concerns about the project’s use of third-party logos on its site, hinting at misleading promotional tactics.
Moreover, community feedback about the project has also been overwhelmingly negative. Many users labeled the tokenomics as flawed and accused the team of focusing on short-term hype rather than sustainable value.
“If you’re buying REAL token, prepare to get dumped on. The tokenomics are absolute trash, and the unlock cliff is only 12 hours. You’re essentially giving your money away if you buy this token,” Crypto Rug Muncher wrote.
Conor McGregor’s REAL Token Tokenomics. Source: REAL Website
“Celebrity coins like McGregor’s REAL and Trumps’ are toxic for crypto! Driven by hype, they lack utility, $Trump crashed 81%, $Melania 92%. These [tokens] hurt investors and crypto’s reputation. We need utility tokens for real value and growth,” Maragkos Petros, the founder of MetadudesX said on social media platform X.
