A Monad airdrop recipient lost their entire $112,000 reward after hundreds of failed transactions drained the allocation in gas fees, exposing both operational errors and weaknesses in the project’s claim infrastructure. The incident, involving wallet 0x7f4…fa7d, shows how automation without safeguards and fragile claim portals can turn an incentive into a full loss.

Operational failure and a compromised claim process

The user triggered a rapid series of automated claim attempts that repeatedly failed yet still consumed gas, accumulating enough execution costs to wipe out the entire MON balance. This was not a signature-based theft but a loss created by uncontrolled automation and high-frequency failed transactions.

Congratulations to 0x7f4e…fa7d who managed to spend their entire Monad airdrop (112.7k) on failed txn fees 🫡 pic.twitter.com/HHSjw9UemL

— Joe (@0xosprey) November 24, 2025

The event also revealed a traceability inconsistency. Early records referenced Solscan —a Solana explorer— even though Monad is an EVM-compatible chain, suggesting either a faulty cross-chain interaction or misattributed case data. In both scenarios, the mismatch highlights the operational complexity and risk of relying on multiple explorers and bridges without verification.

Meanwhile, security firm SlowMist found a vulnerability in Monad’s official claim portal that allowed attackers to hijack user sessions, linking legitimate allocations to attacker-controlled wallets without explicit user confirmation. This flaw acted as a web-layer attack vector, enabling allocation capture without private key compromise.

For users and treasuries, the lessons are direct: test claim flows before executing them at scale, verify explorer data across chains, restrict automation, and avoid unsupervised scripts that can silently accumulate gas losses.

The case blends operational mismanagement with a portal-level vulnerability, demonstrating that both user errors and interface security flaws can turn airdrops into substantial losses.