MASK Token Unsellable

Notice: This page is a freshly imported case study from the original repository. The original content was in a different format, and may not have relevant information for all sections. Please help restructure the content by moving information from the 'About' and 'General Prevention' sections to other sections, and add any missing information or sources you can find. If you are new here, please read General Tutorial on Wikis or Anatomy of a Case Study for help getting started.

Notice: This page contains sources which are not attributed to any text. The unattributed sources follow the initial description. Please assist by visiting each source, reviewing the content, and placing that reference next to any text it can be used to support. Feel free to add any information that you come across which isn't present already. Sources which don't contain any relevant information can be removed. Broken links can be replaced with versions from the Internet Archive. See General Tutorial on Wikis, Anatomy of a Case Study, and/or Citing Your Sources Guide for additional information. Thanks for your help!

MASK Token

In anticipation of a new MASK token which was to be released by MetaMask, a scam token was created also called MASK. The token was structured so that the ability to sell it would stop working over time, through a modification to the smart contract. It is reported that 462 ETH was spent purchasing the tokens. Much of the proceeds/profits were taken out through TornadoCash, and there is no indication that any affected users will obtain a recovery of their lost funds.

This is a global/international case not involving a specific country.

About MASK Token

"Then came the actively malicious $MASK scam, capitalising on the hype generated by the above examples, and speculation on whether MetaMask would release its own token." "[A] token was issued by “MaskDAO”, the website was registered yesterday, December 27th."

"Today, on Dec. 28, Ether holders started reporting a new "honeypot contact," i.e., a token that you can only buy but not sell. The scam impersonates MetaMask's governance token, Mask, which has not been issued yet."

"The person or persons who created these fakes almost deserves credit for being cunning enough to superimpose what looks like a real OpenSea verified blue check mark on the stolen Hashmasks logo inside the logo’s border (see below). They link to the real Hashmasks website and Discord and are betting people won’t notice the extra apostrophe after “Hasmasks.” Another tell is, this sham collection is on Polygon."

"The scammer was able to manipulate DEXTools into showing a blue tick verification and pop-up which displayed the token as legitimate."

"Hackers injected malicious code into the description of the token that the website executed, resulting in a much-anticipated blue "Verified" badge displayed next to WETH/MASK pair."

"Mr. @cobynft revealed that the sell option was locked after $1 million in liquidity was injected into MASK. Right now, the token is labeled as a "honeypot" by automatic analytic systems due to its code including the line that does not allow selling it."

"After users piled in, 462 ETH was pulled from the Uni v2 pool. The contract also included fees on transfer which were sent directly to this address." "127 ETH of which have since been sent on to another address, and then to Tornado Cash." "According to Etherscan, the actual number of victims of this scam could be closer to 400."

"User Jeremy shared a screenshot of the transaction history of an Ether holder who bought MASK for 22 ETH (nearly $ 88,000) and was unable to sell it afterwards."

"Really depressing. Dude tries to ape a coin 7 times upping ante each time. Fails each time. Gets in his entire net worth on the last go. Coin was a fake metamask token. Dextools exploit. Unsellable. What you're seeing here is a star going out."

"It seems that some traders are able to make a sale in the first few hours. But then it got worse and people started to realize they were being betrayed."

"As crypto enthusiast @cobynft explained, MASK token issuers used a trick to get verification badges for the popular DeFi app DexTool."

“Hackers added malicious code to the description of the token displayed by the website, resulting in the highly anticipated blue ‘Verified’ badge next to the WETH / MASK pair,” he said.

This is a global/international case not involving a specific country.

The background of the exchange platform, service, or individuals involved, as it would have been seen or understood at the time of the events.

Include:

• Known history of when and how the service was started.
• What problems does the company or service claim to solve?
• What marketing materials were used by the firm or business?
• Audits performed, and excerpts that may have been included.
• Business registration documents shown (fake or legitimate).
• How were people recruited to participate?
• Public warnings and announcements prior to the event.

Don't Include:

• Any wording which directly states or implies that the business is/was illegitimate, or that a vulnerability existed.
• Anything that wasn't reasonably knowable at the time of the event.

There could be more than one section here. If the same platform is involved with multiple incidents, then it can be linked to a main article page.

The Reality

This sections is included if a case involved deception or information that was unknown at the time. Examples include:

• When the service was actually started (if different than the "official story").
• Who actually ran a service and their own personal history.
• How the service was structured behind the scenes. (For example, there was no "trading bot".)
• Details of what audits reported and how vulnerabilities were missed during auditing.

What Happened

The specific events of the loss and how it came about. What actually happened to cause the loss and some of the events leading up to it.

Key Event Timeline - MASK Token Unsellable

Date	Event	Description
December 27th, 2021 2:12:00 PM MST	Main Event	Expand this into a brief description of what happened and the impact. If multiple lines are necessary, add them here.

Technical Details

This section includes specific detailed technical analysis of any security breaches which happened. What specific software vulnerabilities contributed to the problem and how were they exploited?

Total Amount Lost

The total amount lost has been estimated at $1,865,000 USD.

How much was lost and how was it calculated? If there are conflicting reports, which are accurate and where does the discrepancy lie?

Immediate Reactions

How did the various parties involved (firm, platform, management, and/or affected individual(s)) deal with the events? Were services shut down? Were announcements made? Were groups formed?

Ultimate Outcome

What was the end result? Was any investigation done? Were any individuals prosecuted? Was there a lawsuit? Was any tracing done?

Total Amount Recovered

There do not appear to have been any funds recovered in this case.

What funds were recovered? What funds were reimbursed for those affected users?

Ongoing Developments

What parts of this case are still remaining to be concluded?

General Prevention Policies

There are a multitude of tools which can be used to detect tokens that can't be sold. However, this may be a "cat and mouse" game with hackers finding clever ways to fool the detection mechanisms.

There are no reported cases of such tokens being listed on any exchange which is centralized or has individuals to currate their token list.

Individual Prevention Policies

No specific policies for individual prevention have yet been identified in this case.

For the full list of how to protect your funds as an individual, check our Prevention Policies for Individuals guide.

Platform Prevention Policies

Policies for platforms to take to prevent this situation have not yet been selected in this case.

For the full list of how to protect your funds as a financial service, check our Prevention Policies for Platforms guide.

Regulatory Prevention Policies

No specific regulatory policies have yet been identified in this case.

For the full list of regulatory policies that can prevent loss, check our Prevention Policies for Regulators guide.