In the world of cryptocurrency, a significant phenomenon is circulating among seasoned players: when transferring USDT, they almost universally choose the TRC-20 protocol based on the Tron chain, while actively avoiding the Ethereum ERC-20 standard. This is not merely a preference, but a survival wisdom forged from countless painful lessons—fake coin traps, address freezes, and exorbitant transaction fees. This silent 'on-chain protocol war' profoundly affects the liquidity security of digital assets.
One, ERC-20: A high-risk zone teeming with fake coins.
Ethereum's ERC-20 protocol is known for its openness, but it has also become a breeding ground for fake coins. Anyone can issue tokens named 'USDT,' even perfectly cloning the official logo. Data from exchanges in 2023 shows that 23% of 'USDT' transfers on platforms originate from fake contract addresses, and their scam techniques are highly deceptive.
Clone disguise technique: Scammers create tokens that display as 'USDT Tether' with identical icons to the genuine article, but the contract address is newly deployed. New users are easily deceived. True USDT has blue verification checks on Etherscan, with over 500,000 addresses holding it; fake coins are often new addresses with only a few hundred holders.
Fishing Trap: Inducing users to transfer funds to fake contract addresses through phishing websites or fraudulent apps. In January 2024, a user received 1000 USDT transferred from an unfamiliar address, mistakenly believing it was a system error, and subsequently transferred 5000 real USDT, which was instantly 'harvested' by the smart contract.
Liquidity Scam: Some fake coins create a false illusion of liquidity on decentralized exchanges. Once users make large purchases, the liquidity evaporates instantly, leading to a 99% price drop, resulting in total loss for investors.
Veteran players' response guide: Conduct 'three-step verification' before receiving ERC-20 USDT.
1. Copy the contract address of the other party.
2. Query on Etherscan.
3. Confirm blue check certification, named 'Tether USD,' with over 100,000 addresses holding the token.
Two, address freezing: The regulatory sword of ERC-20 hangs high.
Ethereum's powerful on-chain analysis tools make it a regulatory focus. Once an address is marked for involvement in scams, money laundering, or other violations, the ERC-20 USDT it holds may be directly frozen. Data from 2023 shows that 87% of USDT frozen by exchanges came from the ERC-20 protocol.
Upstream pollution risk: Even if the receiver is innocent, if the source of funds is from a marked address, assets may also be frozen, just like handling 'stolen money.'
Contract trap: Some scam tokens preset 'freezing clauses' in their smart contracts that trigger locking when users transfer to specific addresses. The 'USDT v2' scam exposed in March 2024 froze over 20 million USDT using this method.
Regulatory pressure: Institutions like the U.S. OFAC regularly publish sanction lists, requiring Tether to freeze related addresses. ERC-20, as the mainstream protocol, is the first to be affected. In contrast, the regulatory response for TRC-20 based on Tron is often delayed, providing users with critical buffer time.
Veteran players' risk avoidance strategy:
Refuse to accept USDT from unknown sources.
Regularly use tools like OKLink and Chainabuse to check address risks.
Quickly transfer received USDT to a compliant exchange for 'washing.'
Three, exorbitant transaction fees and congestion: The heavy burden of ERC-20.
Ethereum's Gas fee mechanism makes ERC-20 transfer costs high and unpredictable; during peak times, a single transaction fee can exceed $50, with confirmation times lasting several minutes. In contrast, TRC-20 has significant advantages:
Low and stable fees: TRC-20 transfer fees are fixed at about $0.02 (0.1 TRX), unaffected by network fluctuations.
Speed advantage: Tron chain block confirmation takes about 3 seconds, whereas Ethereum can take 5-10 minutes during congestion, which is crucial for urgent withdrawals or arbitrage operations.
Small transfer friendly: The high fees of ERC-20 are very uneconomical for small transfers, while TRC-20 does not have this issue.
Veteran players' cost strategy:
For daily small transfers, TRC-20 is the first choice.
Before large ERC-20 transfers, check the Etherscan Gas prediction and choose to execute during low peak times.
Reserve TRC-20 USDT as emergency funds.
Safety Rule: The 'Three R' iron rule of veteran players.
In the perilous world of cryptocurrencies, 'address matching + risk checking' is the survival baseline. Experienced players have summarized the 'Three R Principles' to avoid 99% of USDT traps.
Request (prior declaration): Clearly agree on the network protocol before the transaction. If the other party insists on ERC-20, be sure to declare 'Gas fees are self-borne' to avoid disputes.
Research (mandatory verification): Regardless of any assurances from the other party, the contract address must be personally verified for authenticity before receipt.
Remix (funds isolation): Immediately transfer received USDT to a new address or exchange to cut potential risk associations with the source address.
Tether's official data shows that by 2024, the circulation of TRC-20 USDT has significantly increased, reflecting the market's demand for low-cost and high-efficiency protocols. However, security experts simultaneously warn that as TRC-20 usage rises, it may also attract more illegal activities and regulatory scrutiny. The choice of veteran players in balancing efficiency and security is both a culmination of experience and a pragmatic move in the current environment.
