Watch-only BCH wallets being used to create false claims of ownership

Wallets
#1

We have observed a recurring support pattern at Gem Wallet: users import the following BCH address as a watch-only wallet and then contact support asking how to withdraw or sell its balance:

qpm2qsznhks23z7629mms6s4cwef74vcwvy22gdx6a

These users do not appear to possess the private key or recovery phrase. Importing a public address only allows the wallet to display its on-chain activity; it does not establish ownership or provide spending authority.

This particular address is widely used as a CashAddr example in documentation. It corresponds to the legacy example address:

1BpEi6DfDAUFd7GtittLSdBeYJvcoaVggu

It has also appeared in previous reports where someone copied the example address and accidentally sent BCH to it. The repeated support cases suggest that scammers may be directing people to import this public address into watch-only wallets, then falsely claiming that the displayed balance belongs to them.

This raises a broader wallet UX question: how should BCH wallets prevent users from confusing visibility with ownership?

Some possible safeguards:

  • Display a persistent and prominent Watch-only / View-only label.
  • Warn during import that a public address does not provide control of its funds.
  • Disable sending, swapping and cashing out, with an explanation that the private key is unavailable.
  • Avoid language such as “your balance” for watch-only accounts.
  • Ensure support diagnostics clearly distinguish key-backed wallets from watch-only wallets.

Have other BCH wallet teams encountered this scam pattern? Are there existing conventions for communicating watch-only status that have worked particularly well?

3 Likes
#2

That’s super easy.

Do not show the balance as actual balance.

Separate it competely from a normal balance - there are various methods to achieve this, such as:

  • Don’t display the “view only” balance at all in the funds screen
  • Only display it in “expert mode”
  • Show that balance on a separate screen with a big red clear warning :warning:You do not own this balance :warning:
  • Show balance in a (OWNED_BALANCE[in green] + VIEWING BALANCE [greyed out, hardly visible])

At this point, if the theoretical user is stupid enough to fall for such a trick, such a user should not be using crypto at all IMHO. Such people actually exist?

#3

I missed one:

  • Contrary to normal [balance], don’t name the view-only balance as [balance]. Name it as something else, like “0.7653 BCH: remote-view, not owned balance”

Yeah, “remote view” hits the spot imho. Even exceptionally stupid people should recognize that means they do not own it.

1 Like
#4

Thanks @ShadowOfHarbringer. Gem Wallet already displays an import warning explaining that an address can be used to view balances and transactions, but cannot send or sell funds.

image
image796Ă—1608 113 KB

We actually have a guide for this.

Once a watch-wallet has been created, the buttons are actually not even shown. And some users still fall for this possible scam.

The recurring cases suggest that an import-time warning alone may not be enough when social engineering happens after import. “Remote view” is a useful framing for the persistent wallet state: it could make the lack of ownership clear in the account label and balance presentation, not only during setup.

Separating remote-view information from spendable funds, disabling transaction actions, and keeping the warning visible would provide additional protection for users who are being misled.

#5

Thanks again for the “remote view” framing. We have updated the persistent watch-only wallet state to make the ownership boundary much clearer: “Watch-only wallet. You don’t control these funds.”

image
image1206Ă—2622 146 KB

The notice remains visible alongside the displayed balance, rather than being limited to the import step. This is intended to help users recognize that seeing an address and its funds does not provide the keys needed to send or sell them.

We will keep refining this based on real support cases.

#6

That’s a good start, however you should display all the coins (especially logotypes) in grayscale and make them transparent a little, so they’re let’s say 30% less visible than in your normal wallet interface. This seems pretty straightforward to do.

For maximum effectiveness, the information that “something is not right” should be conveyed by multiple possible means.

1 Like
#7

@ShadowOfHarbringer That makes sense. The warning is clearer when the visual treatment reinforces it, not just the text.

We will consider reducing the visual prominence of watch-only assets—such as using a muted treatment for token icons and balances—while keeping the information readable for monitoring. The goal is to make it immediately clear that these are visible balances, not funds the user can control.

1 Like
#8

Good thinking.

Do come back and tell us how it went. The topic is quite interesting.

1 Like