Monad Mainnet Launch: Why MON Spiked, the ERC‑20 Scam Risk, and How Layer‑1s Should Harden

What happened on Monad’s mainnet day?

Monad’s mainnet debut turned into a textbook case of how airdrop mechanics + novelty + speculation can create explosive short‑term price action. Public reporting showed MON emerging as one of the best performers among the top 100 tokens in the hours and days after launch, with large percentage gains as on‑chain transactions surged and traders chased new flows (NewsBTC). At the same time, journalists flagged the surge was closely tied to airdrop demand and claim activity rather than organic product adoption (BeInCrypto).

For many traders, Bitcoin remains the primary market bellwether — but new Layer‑1 launches like Monad attract a different cohort: speculators hunting rapid returns, early users chasing free token claims, and participants testing the mainnet. That concentrated behavioral mix is a perfect short‑term volatility amplifier.

Why the airdrop pushed MON higher (tokenomics and mechanics)

Airdrops are a double‑edged sword. They can bootstrap network usage and decentralize token ownership — but the mechanics determine whether activity is sustainable or merely a short squeeze.

• Immediate claim vs. vesting: If an airdrop releases tokens with little or no vesting, recipients often move rapidly to sell, driving high trade volume. Media coverage of Monad tied the price pop to airdrop-driven transaction demand rather than organic economic activity (BeInCrypto).
• Claim UX and gas economics: Mainnet launches that require on‑chain claim transactions create short windows of elevated gas use and many micro‑transactions — prime fodder for bots and front‑running. Those same mechanics increase on‑chain active addresses, which gets picked up by listeners and market makers, further amplifying price moves.
• Liquidity concentration: Early liquidity is often shallow. A modest amount of buying (or panic buying) can push price sharply higher when order books are thin, magnifying headline percentage gains like MON’s early surge (NewsBTC).

Taken together: the airdrop created transaction demand and a narrative ("free tokens") that traders quickly monetized. That story drove a rapid re‑pricing of MON — appropriate for short‑term capital flows, but not necessarily indicative of long‑term network value.

The fake ERC‑20 transfer attacks — anatomy and impact

Soon after launch, Monad was targeted by a class of scams commonly seen around new token events: fake ERC‑20 transfer attacks. Reporting documented attackers creating tokens and transfer records that mimicked legitimate token activity, then using social engineering or wallet UX confusion to try to get users to interact with malicious contracts (Blockonomi).

How these scams typically work (step by step):

1. Attacker deploys mock ERC‑20 tokens that reuse the same name/symbol or otherwise mimic the target token.
2. A small transfer or a crafted transaction makes a token appear in a walletUI or explorer listing, triggering curiosity.
3. The scam operator lures the user (via DM, email, or a webpage) to claim or trade the token. The claim process often asks for an approval or signature that grants a contract permission to move funds.
4. Once the user approves, the malicious contract drains funds or performs an unwanted transfer.

Blockonomi’s coverage of Monad’s post‑launch environment highlights that these attacks are neither new nor subtle — they rely on predictable human and UI weaknesses more than exotic technical exploits (Blockonomi).

Real‑world behaviors scammers exploit

• Trusting token icons and symbols: Users assume matching symbols mean legitimate provenance.
• Clicking “claim” links in social channels without verifying contract addresses.
• Blindly approving contracts in wallets because the UX obscures the permission scope.

Education reduces success rates dramatically; technical and UX mitigations reduce exposure.

Protocol and wallet fixes — practical recommendations

Layer‑1 projects, wallets and developer teams can make a lot of this risk manageable. Below are pragmatic, actionable defenses grouped by scope.

Token standards, registries and airdrop design

• Use signed, off‑chain merkle claims rather than mass on‑chain distributions. Merkle claims let projects avoid sending tokens directly to every wallet and reduce the "unexpected token" surface.
• Maintain a chain‑native verified contract registry for the token and airdrop contract. Browsers and explorers should flag unregistered contracts.
• Consider time‑locked or staggered vesting for airdrop allocations to lower immediate sell pressure and smooth liquidity impacts.
• Namespace assets by chain in metadata to avoid symbol collisions — wallets can show "MON (Monad Mainnet)" vs "MON (OtherChain)".

Wallet UX guardrails

• Default wallets should hide unverified tokens and require explicit user opt‑in to show balances for unknown contracts.
• Improve approval dialogs: present human‑readable summaries of permission scopes (e.g., "This contract can move ALL TOKENS with this symbol") and require a secondary confirmation step for broad approvals.
• Integrate on‑chain contract verification APIs (from block explorers) so wallets can show verification status inline.
• Add rate‑limits or friction for user actions following airdrops (for example, a "Claim safety check" that explains risks if a claim requires approvals).

Operational security and monitoring for projects

• Pre‑launch audits and public bug bounties targeted at claim flows and contract approval paths.
• Real‑time monitoring and automated takedowns/alerts for lookalike token deployments and phishing domains.
• Clear, timely, and pinned communication channels: official addresses for claim information, and immediate guidance if fake tokens appear.

What investors, devs and security teams should watch next

For speculative traders and security teams trying to separate signal from noise, focus on these indicators:

• Liquidity depth and DEX order book spreads. Superficial liquidity means price swings are more about flows than fundamentals.
• Airdrop vesting schedules and future unlocks. Large scheduled unlocks can pressure price weeks/months after launch.
• Exchange listings and institutional custody. Listings often re‑price a token, but they also bring regulatory and counterparty risk.
• On‑chain health metrics: unique active addresses, non‑zero balance wallets diversity, and recurring transaction patterns beyond claim windows.
• Incident response quality: how quickly the team communicates, whether they publish indicators of compromise, and whether they coordinate with major wallets and explorers.

Practically speaking: use risk‑management strategies such as staggered position sizing, limit orders, and stop‑losses. Tools and platforms — including services like Bitlet.app — can be part of a disciplined approach to dollar‑cost or installment strategies when entering volatile new projects.

Conclusion — lessons for the next Layer‑1

Monad’s mainnet launch illustrates two predictable truths: airdrops reliably create on‑chain activity and speculative interest, and scams that exploit UI/UX assumptions will follow almost immediately. The good news is these problems are solvable: better airdrop mechanics, verified registries, improved wallet UX, and proactive communication cut attacker success rates and reduce investor harm.

For developers and security teams, the takeaway is to treat launch day as an operational security exercise as much as a product milestone. For traders, the lesson is to parse whether price moves are hydro‑powered by fundamental usage or by claim mechanics and thin liquidity. If you watch the right metrics — liquidity, vesting, on‑chain participation and the team’s incident response — you can better separate transient hype from durable value.

Sources

• Monad price jumps on the back of transactions — BeInCrypto
• Monad (MON) price skyrockets 80% — NewsBTC
• Fake ERC‑20 transfers target Monad’s mainnet just days after launch — Blockonomi