Every time technology is updated, it is simultaneously seized upon by two types of people: one type uses it to solve problems, and the other uses it to package scams. In the past two years, scams surrounding concepts such as AI, blockchain, and the metaverse have increased noticeably. Their commonality is not how new the technology is, but that their rhetoric sounds more and more real. Seeing the structure within them is more useful than remembering a specific case.
Category One: Identity-Impersonation Scams Using Technology
The core of this type of scam is "making you believe that the person on the other side of the screen is someone you know." The usual method is to first obtain relationship information through public channels or information leaks, then synthesize a voice or face, create a video or voice call, and then demand a transfer on the grounds of an emergency need for money.
The method of identifying it is actually not complicated. The key is not to follow the rhythm set by the other party: hang up and call back to confirm using a number you are familiar with and have saved in advance; when a transfer is involved, agree on a verification question that only the real person would know; and remain skeptical of any judgment that "being on a video call" equals "the person is present"—both video and voice can be synthesized, which is a reality that must be accepted under current technological conditions.
Category Two: Ponzi-Style Schemes Dressed in the Cloak of New Concepts
This type of scam uses words such as "blockchain," "digital rights confirmation," and "computing power" as credibility endorsements, making participants think they are taking part in a new type of transaction, while in reality it is still the old structure in which later entrants' funds pay off earlier entrants. Their typical features include: promising stable high returns, setting additional conditions for withdrawals such as recruiting new people or unlocking accounts, and showing assets in the account that can be seen but cannot be withdrawn.
To judge this type of project, you must look through the concept to the structure: Where do the returns come from? If the returns do not come from real operations or transactions, but from the funds of later joiners, then no matter what concept it is packaged as, its nature is the same. In addition, information on legitimate entities can be verified through public channels; those that refuse to provide it or are vague should be avoided outright.
Category Three: Overdrawing Expectations with Future Concepts
When the public only half understands a new concept, that is the high-incidence period for it to be used for peddling. Common practices include auctioning virtual rights that are not scarce or may even be freely available, or issuing so-called "tokens" or "rights certificates" that cannot be verified through public channels. Their value depends entirely on later joiners believing they have value.
Your attitude toward this type of project can be simpler: anything that requires "getting in early" or a "limited-time quota" to push a decision, set it aside for now. Truly valuable assets do not need a countdown to force you to decide immediately.
The Common Logic: Trading Cognitive Gaps for Decision-Making Power
The three types of scams look different, but underneath is the same logic—creating information asymmetry so that you hand over decision-making power in a mindset of "I don't understand it, but I don't want to miss out." The way to counter it is therefore also common: make "Do I truly understand it?" the prerequisite for action, and "Can it be independently verified?" the standard for judgment. Technology will keep being renewed, but these two judgment standards are unlikely to become outdated.