WLFI Faces Backlash As False Lazarus Claim Exposes Flaws in On-Chain Analysis

Key Insights:

• On-chain analysis can create false links when contract behavior is not checked, as seen in the WLFI case.
• A WLFI user lost access to $95,000 after a mistaken tag linked his wallet to a North Korean hacking group.
• The report missed real issues, showing why on-chain analysis needs careful reading, not quick conclusions.

On-chain analysis is meant to help people understand what happens on the blockchain. It shows who sent what, when they sent it, and which wallets are linked.

But this week showed that even clear data can be read the wrong way. One mistake turned into a public claim, froze a user’s money, and turned a simple contract bug into a national security story. Let us understand how!

The On-Chain Analysis Mistake

The problem started when a watchdog group released a long report about WLFI, a token project linked to the Trump family. The report said that a user named shryder.eth had interacted with the Lazarus Group.

The Lazarus Group is a North Korean state-backed hacking team known for attacking banks, exchanges, and even government systems.

The claim was serious. It came with screenshots, wallet paths, and transaction history. Anyone reading it quickly would think the connection was real.

But the report did not check the smart contract behind the token that created the “Lazarus link.”

A meme token called Dream Cash had set the Lazarus wallet as its contract owner.

This meant the token looked like it came from Lazarus, even though Lazarus never touched it. When Shryder.eth claimed the token, the transfer appeared as if it came from the hacker group. It was only a trick created by the contract setup.

The analyst team did not catch this. They treated the token claim as proof of a real link. That error became the basis of a fourteen-page document. This is where the on-chain analysis faltered, as the real transaction list of the actual Lazarus group wasn’t checked or tracked.

The issuer was later reported on X by analyst Nick Bax in a detailed thread.

The Actual Damage

The mistake spread online very fast. It was repeated as if it were confirmed behavior. Because the allegations sounded serious, WLFI reacted by freezing the user’s tokens.

About $95,000 became locked. He could not move or use those tokens anymore.

This was not the first time this wallet faced a block. He was also stopped by Uniswap and OpenSea in the past.

These platforms use automated tools that block any wallet that looks suspicious. These tools often use simple matching rules. They do not check contract details or intent.

So a single tag can follow a user for years, even when the underlying reason is wrong. A standard case of a false positive.

This case showed how on-chain analysis can create problems when people only read the surface and skip the technical parts.

The Real Problems in the Report?

While the biggest claim in the report was wrong, it did mention other buyers who raised real questions.

Some buyers had supposedly used Iran’s largest crypto exchange, which has been linked to groups trying to avoid sanctions.

One user had also allegedly used the A7A5 token, which is a ruble-based asset made to help Russian companies send money across borders without traditional banking checks.

Several others allegedly used Tornado Cash, which is a mixing tool that hides the source of funds.

Tornado Cash has been used by many regular users, but it has also been used by hackers and criminal groups because it breaks the link between wallets.

These cases were real and supported by actual data points. But they were not part of the report that went viral. The loudest point was the one built on an incorrect reading.

This shows a simple issue. On-chain analysis reveals raw activity.  It does not explain why something happened. It does not tell you whether a transfer was a joke, a test, a mistake, or a real act. Without checking the contract or the design of the token, a normal transaction can look like a threat.