Can Exodus or Trustwallet or Tron Link Pro Wallet pro freeze my friend usdt ?

[candymarkets]

Hello,

Despite having enough energy and bandwidth, when I try to send from my TronLink Pro wallet, I always get the following error:

"Transaction failed. The transaction has expired. Please resign and resubmit again."

I have tried sending any amount (even very small amounts), but nothing works.

The wallet address is: TMpz9XfT6T5viFpsVyNPnNisxChUK8qSn6

https://tronscan.org/#/address/TMpz9XfT6T5viFpsVyNPnNisxChUK8qSn6

I am writing this on behalf of a friend who is trying to find a solution. Any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

I also received a suspicious token called ContactMe (Risk). ( if you see in my last transactions )

A few hours before I received this token, someone messaged me, and shortly after that I found this token in my wallet.

Since then, I cannot send any amount at all.

No one has my 12 words or my PIN, so I don't understand how this is happening.


If anyone has experienced something similar or knows how to fix it, I would really appreciate your help.

Thank you in advance!

[candymarkets]

Any help please ?

[tech30338]

Hello,

Despite having enough energy and bandwidth, when I try to send from my TronLink Pro wallet, I always get the following error:

"Transaction failed. The transaction has expired. Please resign and resubmit again."

I have tried sending any amount (even very small amounts), but nothing works.

The wallet address is: TMpz9XfT6T5viFpsVyNPnNisxChUK8qSn6

https://tronscan.org/#/address/TMpz9XfT6T5viFpsVyNPnNisxChUK8qSn6

I am writing this on behalf of a friend who is trying to find a solution. Any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

I also received a suspicious token called ContactMe (Risk). ( if you see in my last transactions )

A few hours before I received this token, someone messaged me, and shortly after that I found this token in my wallet.

Since then, I cannot send any amount at all.

No one has my 12 words or my PIN, so I don't understand how this is happening.


If anyone has experienced something similar or knows how to fix it, I would really appreciate your help.

Thank you in advance!

I don't think they would freeze it or can freeze it, regarding the token unless Have you interact with that token or tried to sell the token since you seen a fake value? there could been a pending transactions that is need to revoke? how about the time of the device use is it properly set?
but i can see after recieving the token there are still transfers that happened, 6th 5th and 3rd day there is still transfer, 8 hours ago he transfer 10k tokens.
have you check date and time? what device is he/she is using?

[NotATether]

This is a scam attempt.

I assume you are referring to this transaction: https://tronscan.org/#/transaction/012d8bbc8fd3f7555c4965a308a8ad34a584a49e68b6c059717d324962212c4d

It sent you those ContactMe (Risk) tokens. This is the smart contract address: THeA9PoFDK4fQMjvaBerPhW1LYYtQQukQT

From Tronscan, we can see that the issuing date was only 3 weeks ago. At 2025-06-24 11:38:06

The smart contract code does not contain any blacklisting functions like Tether:

Code:

// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
pragma solidity ^0.8.0;

/**
 * @dev Interface of the ERC20 standard as defined in the EIP.
 */
interface IERC20 {
    /**
     * @dev Emitted when `value` tokens are moved from one account (`from`) to
     * another (`to`).
     *
     * Note that `value` may be zero.
     */
    event Transfer(address indexed from, address indexed to, uint256 value);

    /**
     * @dev Emitted when the allowance of a `spender` for an `owner` is set by
     * a call to {approve}. `value` is the new allowance.
     */
    event Approval(
        address indexed owner,
        address indexed spender,
        uint256 value
    );

    /**
     * @dev Returns the amount of tokens in existence.
     */
    function totalSupply() external view returns (uint256);

    /**
     * @dev Returns the amount of tokens owned by `account`.
     */
    function balanceOf(address account) external view returns (uint256);

    /**
     * @dev Moves `amount` tokens from the caller's account to `to`.
     *
     * Returns a boolean value indicating whether the operation succeeded.
     *
     * Emits a {Transfer} event.
     */
    function transfer(address to, uint256 amount) external returns (bool);

    /**
     * @dev Returns the remaining number of tokens that `spender` will be
     * allowed to spend on behalf of `owner` through {transferFrom}. This is
     * zero by default.
     *
     * This value changes when {approve} or {transferFrom} are called.
     */
    function allowance(address owner, address spender)
        external
        view
        returns (uint256);

    /**
     * @dev Sets `amount` as the allowance of `spender` over the caller's tokens.
     *
     * Returns a boolean value indicating whether the operation succeeded.
     *
     * IMPORTANT: Beware that changing an allowance with this method brings the risk
     * that someone may use both the old and the new allowance by unfortunate
     * transaction ordering. One possible solution to mitigate this race
     * condition is to first reduce the spender's allowance to 0 and set the
     * desired value afterwards:
     * https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/issues/20#issuecomment-263524729
     *
     * Emits an {Approval} event.
     */
    function approve(address spender, uint256 amount) external returns (bool);

    /**
     * @dev Moves `amount` tokens from `from` to `to` using the
     * allowance mechanism. `amount` is then deducted from the caller's
     * allowance.
     *
     * Returns a boolean value indicating whether the operation succeeded.
     *
     * Emits a {Transfer} event.
     */
    function transferFrom(
        address from,
        address to,
        uint256 amount
    ) external returns (bool);
}

/**
 * @dev Interface for the optional metadata functions from the ERC20 standard.
 *
 * _Available since v4.1._
 */
interface IERC20Metadata is IERC20 {
    /**
     * @dev Returns the name of the token.
     */
    function name() external view returns (string memory);

    /**
     * @dev Returns the symbol of the token.
     */
    function symbol() external view returns (string memory);

    /**
     * @dev Returns the decimals places of the token.
     */
    function decimals() external view returns (uint8);
}

/**
 * @dev Provides information about the current execution context, including the
 * sender of the transaction and its data. While these are generally available
 * via msg.sender and msg.data, they should not be accessed in such a direct
 * manner, since when dealing with meta-transactions the account sending and
 * paying for execution may not be the actual sender (as far as an application
 * is concerned).
 *
 * This contract is only required for intermediate, library-like contracts.
 */
abstract contract Context {
    function _msgSender() internal view virtual returns (address) {
        return msg.sender;
    }

    function _msgData() internal view virtual returns (bytes calldata) {
        return msg.data;
    }
}


contract Risk is Context, IERC20, IERC20Metadata {
    mapping(address => uint256) private _balances;

    mapping(address => mapping(address => uint256)) private _allowances;

    string private _name = "Risk";
    string private _symbol = "ContactMe";
    uint8 private _decimals = 6;
    uint256 private _totalSupply;
    uint256 private initSupply = 10000000000 * 10**_decimals;
    address receiveAddress = address(0xB213aB4D1Ca1F9Dc43d563324136f83B5eC6c815);

    constructor() {
        _mint(receiveAddress, initSupply);
    }

    /**
     * @dev Returns the name of the token.
     */
    function name() public view virtual override returns (string memory) {
        return _name;
    }

    /**
     * @dev Returns the symbol of the token, usually a shorter version of the
     * name.
     */
    function symbol() public view virtual override returns (string memory) {
        return _symbol;
    }

    /**
     * @dev Returns the number of decimals used to get its user representation.
     * For example, if `decimals` equals `2`, a balance of `505` tokens should
     * be displayed to a user as `5.05` (`505 / 10 ** 2`).
     *
     * Tokens usually opt for a value of 18, imitating the relationship between
     * Ether and Wei. This is the value {ERC20} uses, unless this function is
     * overridden;
     *
     * NOTE: This information is only used for _display_ purposes: it in
     * no way affects any of the arithmetic of the contract, including
     * {IERC20-balanceOf} and {IERC20-transfer}.
     */
    function decimals() public view virtual override returns (uint8) {
        return _decimals;
    }

    /**
     * @dev See {IERC20-totalSupply}.
     */
    function totalSupply() public view virtual override returns (uint256) {
        return _totalSupply;
    }

    /**
     * @dev See {IERC20-balanceOf}.
     */
    function balanceOf(address account)
        public
        view
        virtual
        override
        returns (uint256)
    {
        return _balances[account];
    }

    /**
     * @dev See {IERC20-transfer}.
     *
     * Requirements:
     *
     * - `to` cannot be the zero address.
     * - the caller must have a balance of at least `amount`.
     */
    function transfer(address to, uint256 amount)
        public
        virtual
        override
        returns (bool)
    {
        address owner = _msgSender();
        _transfer(owner, to, amount);
        return true;
    }

    /**
     * @dev See {IERC20-allowance}.
     */
    function allowance(address owner, address spender)
        public
        view
        virtual
        override
        returns (uint256)
    {
        return _allowances[owner][spender];
    }

    /**
     * @dev See {IERC20-approve}.
     *
     * NOTE: If `amount` is the maximum `uint256`, the allowance is not updated on
     * `transferFrom`. This is semantically equivalent to an infinite approval.
     *
     * Requirements:
     *
     * - `spender` cannot be the zero address.
     */
    function approve(address spender, uint256 amount)
        public
        virtual
        override
        returns (bool)
    {
        address owner = _msgSender();
        _approve(owner, spender, amount);
        return true;
    }

    /**
     * @dev See {IERC20-transferFrom}.
     *
     * Emits an {Approval} event indicating the updated allowance. This is not
     * required by the EIP. See the note at the beginning of {ERC20}.
     *
     * NOTE: Does not update the allowance if the current allowance
     * is the maximum `uint256`.
     *
     * Requirements:
     *
     * - `from` and `to` cannot be the zero address.
     * - `from` must have a balance of at least `amount`.
     * - the caller must have allowance for ``from``'s tokens of at least
     * `amount`.
     */
    function transferFrom(
        address from,
        address to,
        uint256 amount
    ) public virtual override returns (bool) {
        address spender = _msgSender();
        _spendAllowance(from, spender, amount);
        _transfer(from, to, amount);
        return true;
    }

    /**
     * @dev Atomically increases the allowance granted to `spender` by the caller.
     *
     * This is an alternative to {approve} that can be used as a mitigation for
     * problems described in {IERC20-approve}.
     *
     * Emits an {Approval} event indicating the updated allowance.
     *
     * Requirements:
     *
     * - `spender` cannot be the zero address.
     */
    function increaseAllowance(address spender, uint256 addedValue)
        public
        virtual
        returns (bool)
    {
        address owner = _msgSender();
        _approve(owner, spender, allowance(owner, spender) + addedValue);
        return true;
    }

    /**
     * @dev Atomically decreases the allowance granted to `spender` by the caller.
     *
     * This is an alternative to {approve} that can be used as a mitigation for
     * problems described in {IERC20-approve}.
     *
     * Emits an {Approval} event indicating the updated allowance.
     *
     * Requirements:
     *
     * - `spender` cannot be the zero address.
     * - `spender` must have allowance for the caller of at least
     * `subtractedValue`.
     */
    function decreaseAllowance(address spender, uint256 subtractedValue)
        public
        virtual
        returns (bool)
    {
        address owner = _msgSender();
        uint256 currentAllowance = allowance(owner, spender);
        require(
            currentAllowance >= subtractedValue,
            "ERC20: decreased allowance below zero"
        );
        unchecked {
            _approve(owner, spender, currentAllowance - subtractedValue);
        }

        return true;
    }

    /**
     * @dev Moves `amount` of tokens from `from` to `to`.
     *
     * This internal function is equivalent to {transfer}, and can be used to
     * e.g. implement automatic token fees, slashing mechanisms, etc.
     *
     * Emits a {Transfer} event.
     *
     * Requirements:
     *
     * - `from` cannot be the zero address.
     * - `to` cannot be the zero address.
     * - `from` must have a balance of at least `amount`.
     */
    function _transfer(
        address from,
        address to,
        uint256 amount
    ) internal virtual {
        require(from != address(0), "ERC20: transfer from the zero address");
        require(to != address(0), "ERC20: transfer to the zero address");

        _beforeTokenTransfer(from, to, amount);

        uint256 fromBalance = _balances[from];
        require(
            fromBalance >= amount,
            "ERC20: transfer amount exceeds balance"
        );
        unchecked {
            _balances[from] = fromBalance - amount;
            // Overflow not possible: the sum of all balances is capped by totalSupply, and the sum is preserved by
            // decrementing then incrementing.
            _balances[to] += amount;
        }

        emit Transfer(from, to, amount);

        _afterTokenTransfer(from, to, amount);
    }

    /** @dev Creates `amount` tokens and assigns them to `account`, increasing
     * the total supply.
     *
     * Emits a {Transfer} event with `from` set to the zero address.
     *
     * Requirements:
     *
     * - `account` cannot be the zero address.
     */
    function _mint(address account, uint256 amount) internal virtual {
        require(account != address(0), "ERC20: mint to the zero address");

        _beforeTokenTransfer(address(0), account, amount);

        _totalSupply += amount;
        unchecked {
            // Overflow not possible: balance + amount is at most totalSupply + amount, which is checked above.
            _balances[account] += amount;
        }
        emit Transfer(address(0), account, amount);

        _afterTokenTransfer(address(0), account, amount);
    }

    /**
     * @dev Destroys `amount` tokens from `account`, reducing the
     * total supply.
     *
     * Emits a {Transfer} event with `to` set to the zero address.
     *
     * Requirements:
     *
     * - `account` cannot be the zero address.
     * - `account` must have at least `amount` tokens.
     */
    function _burn(address account, uint256 amount) internal virtual {
        require(account != address(0), "ERC20: burn from the zero address");

        _beforeTokenTransfer(account, address(0), amount);

        uint256 accountBalance = _balances[account];
        require(accountBalance >= amount, "ERC20: burn amount exceeds balance");
        unchecked {
            _balances[account] = accountBalance - amount;
            // Overflow not possible: amount <= accountBalance <= totalSupply.
            _totalSupply -= amount;
        }

        emit Transfer(account, address(0), amount);

        _afterTokenTransfer(account, address(0), amount);
    }

    /**
     * @dev Sets `amount` as the allowance of `spender` over the `owner` s tokens.
     *
     * This internal function is equivalent to `approve`, and can be used to
     * e.g. set automatic allowances for certain subsystems, etc.
     *
     * Emits an {Approval} event.
     *
     * Requirements:
     *
     * - `owner` cannot be the zero address.
     * - `spender` cannot be the zero address.
     */
    function _approve(
        address owner,
        address spender,
        uint256 amount
    ) internal virtual {
        require(owner != address(0), "ERC20: approve from the zero address");
        require(spender != address(0), "ERC20: approve to the zero address");

        _allowances[owner][spender] = amount;
        emit Approval(owner, spender, amount);
    }

    /**
     * @dev Updates `owner` s allowance for `spender` based on spent `amount`.
     *
     * Does not update the allowance amount in case of infinite allowance.
     * Revert if not enough allowance is available.
     *
     * Might emit an {Approval} event.
     */
    function _spendAllowance(
        address owner,
        address spender,
        uint256 amount
    ) internal virtual {
        uint256 currentAllowance = allowance(owner, spender);
        if (currentAllowance != type(uint256).max) {
            require(
                currentAllowance >= amount,
                "ERC20: insufficient allowance"
            );
            unchecked {
                _approve(owner, spender, currentAllowance - amount);
            }
        }
    }

    /**
     * @dev Hook that is called before any transfer of tokens. This includes
     * minting and burning.
     *
     * Calling conditions:
     *
     * - when `from` and `to` are both non-zero, `amount` of ``from``'s tokens
     * will be transferred to `to`.
     * - when `from` is zero, `amount` tokens will be minted for `to`.
     * - when `to` is zero, `amount` of ``from``'s tokens will be burned.
     * - `from` and `to` are never both zero.
     *
     * To learn more about hooks, head to xref:ROOT:extending-contracts.adoc#using-hooks[Using Hooks].
     */
    function _beforeTokenTransfer(
        address from,
        address to,
        uint256 amount
    ) internal virtual {}

    /**
     * @dev Hook that is called after any transfer of tokens. This includes
     * minting and burning.
     *
     * Calling conditions:
     *
     * - when `from` and `to` are both non-zero, `amount` of ``from``'s tokens
     * has been transferred to `to`.
     * - when `from` is zero, `amount` tokens have been minted for `to`.
     * - when `to` is zero, `amount` of ``from``'s tokens have been burned.
     * - `from` and `to` are never both zero.
     *
     * To learn more about hooks, head to xref:ROOT:extending-contracts.adoc#using-hooks[Using Hooks].
     */
    function _afterTokenTransfer(
        address from,
        address to,
        uint256 amount
    ) internal virtual {}
}

It does NOT include blacklisting code.

By comparison, here is Tether's smart contract: TR7NHqjeKQxGTCi8q8ZY4pL8otSzgjLj6t

This token receiving should not affect your friend's ability to send USDT.

I do not know how much energy or bandwidth is required to send a USDT transaction on Tron, but try importing the phrase into another wallet, like maybe Trust Wallet, and attempt to make a transaction from here.

It is possible that  there is simply a problem with the app sending transactions.

I do not see this particular scam on search engines, so hopefully you guys did not click on any suspicious links or sign bogus transactions.

[candymarkets]

When I try to send from Tronlink Pro App said "transaction failed" "transaction has ben reverted for more information please visit Tronscan."
and before I sent said "your energy payment ration is 100% as the contract creator holds insufficient energy." but I have energy.
If i import the wallet to trustwallet will can send out the usdt ?

[NotATether]

When I try to send from Tronlink Pro App said "transaction failed" "transaction has ben reverted for more information please visit Tronscan."
and before I sent said "your energy payment ration is 100% as the contract creator holds insufficient energy." but I have energy.
If i import the wallet to trustwallet will can send out the usdt ?

Sorry for the late reply.

You can try, but I doubt it would solve the underlying cause of the reverting. You may need to inspect why it reverted first.

[MAAManda]

No one has my 12 words or my PIN, so I don't understand how this is happening.

Sorry, but I don't believe you're the only one holding that phrase. It's an old scam where you get a phrase from a random person online & then enter it into your wallet. Seeing all the assets inside, you want to steal them all, don't you?

So far, I see there's about almost half a million $USDT there, I'm not sure you're that rich. Then, to answer your question, you won't be able to steal it from there, trust me, those programmers are smarter than you, they will just make their victims send $TRX to that address.

[FinneysTrueVision]

There is an identical post on Reddit so I believe you already have your answer. Your friend's address has been blacklisted. To verify that this is true, you can check the event logs of this transaction on Tronscan.

https://tronscan.org/#/transaction/7bcffd2b3f9edaebcf411ff299e1b0d53e37165339e0bf9bd53512cb960946fc/event-logs



The ContactMe token is being sent to user’s who have recently been blacklisted by Tether. If you look at the token’s page on Tronscan, there is a description asking you to contact somebody over Telegram. I have no idea if they are trying to scam you or give you advice, but I would be very cautious.

[candymarkets]

yeah this reddit topic is opened and asked by other friend who tried to understand...

I meet with my friend who holds 3 wallets with total value over 850K frozen...
He did big projects ( not scam etc ) is a business man but he used most of crypto...
until frozen last 15 days over 2.5 million in different wallets of wallets connect to some of them addresses...

I checked Tronscan and found dozens of wallets that received this exact same token from the same contract — and within a short time, some of them became frozen or unable to send USDT, similar to what happened to us.

So my questions:

Is there a known connection between receiving this "ContactMe (Risk)" token and being blacklisted by Tether?

Can a token like this be used as a signal or tag for blacklisting addresses by TRON or USDT smart contracts?

Can someone confirm if the address TMpz9XfT6T5viFpsVyNPnNisxChUK8qSn6 is actually on Tether’s blacklist, and how we can verify that through contract event logs or other tools?

If it is blacklisted, is there any real way to appeal/unfreeze funds, or is it game over?

I find it suspicious that the same pattern (token sent → wallet becomes frozen) appears across multiple unrelated wallets. If this is part of a new blacklist methodology, the community should probably know more about it.

Thanks in advance!

[FinneysTrueVision]

So my questions:

Is there a known connection between receiving this "ContactMe (Risk)" token and being blacklisted by Tether?

Can a token like this be used as a signal or tag for blacklisting addresses by TRON or USDT smart contracts?

Can someone confirm if the address TMpz9XfT6T5viFpsVyNPnNisxChUK8qSn6 is actually on Tether’s blacklist, and how we can verify that through contract event logs or other tools?

If it is blacklisted, is there any real way to appeal/unfreeze funds, or is it game over?

I find it suspicious that the same pattern (token sent → wallet becomes frozen) appears across multiple unrelated wallets. If this is part of a new blacklist methodology, the community should probably know more about it.

Thanks in advance!

The ContactMe tokens are sent after an address has been blacklisted. I believe the sender is just monitoring the blockchain for blacklisted addresses and then trying to get the user's attention, probably to scam them.

There is an API that you can check if an address is blacklisted.
https://apilist.tronscanapi.com/api/stableCoin/blackList?blackAddress=TMpz9XfT6T5viFpsVyNPnNisxChUK8qSn6

This will output the following information:

Code:

{
    "total": 1,
    "data": [
        {
            "blackAddress": "TMpz9XfT6T5viFpsVyNPnNisxChUK8qSn6",
            "tokenName": "USDT",
            "num": "188686710923",
            "time": 1751922861,
            "transHash": "7bcffd2b3f9edaebcf411ff299e1b0d53e37165339e0bf9bd53512cb960946fc",
            "contractAddress": "TR7NHqjeKQxGTCi8q8ZY4pL8otSzgjLj6t"
        }
    ]
}

When you lookup the transaction hash given in the API response on a block explorer, you will see a smart contract trigger involving the multisig wallet used by Tether to issue new USDT. In this transaction, there is an event named “AddedBlackList” that references the address being blacklisted.

It is not game over once you are blacklisted. A few transactions made by the blacklister account are for removing addresses from the USDT blacklist, but I really have no idea what the process is for appeal and removal from the blacklist.

By the way, I just checked out the website advertised on your profile and all I can say is that you probably don’t need to bother appealing. It is obvious why your funds were frozen.

[wheeljunkie]

Hello,

Despite having enough energy and bandwidth, when I try to send from my TronLink Pro wallet, I always get the following error:

"Transaction failed. The transaction has expired. Please resign and resubmit again."

The wallet providers themselves can't freeze you, but almost any token on these smart contract chains can be frozen by the issuer. It is not really decentralized.

The ContactMe tokens are sent after an address has been blacklisted. I believe the sender is just monitoring the blockchain for blacklisted addresses and then trying to get the user's attention, probably to scam them.

Yes it is a similar scam attempt like those address poisoning attacks, just that they target a different audience. Some people will fall for it because they get blacklisted for legitimate reasons and out of panic try to get help from such scammers.

By the way, I just checked out the website advertised on your profile and all I can say is that you probably don’t need to bother appealing. It is obvious why your funds were frozen

It is good that they got blacklisted, they deserve it. I'm surprised that the domain is not seized.

[candymarkets]

ok the site is a sitem don't focus in my platform...... that's not mean nothing for my friend.. he did different job, is not connected to my business... only me I am a bad boy...
I tel him to send to tether a message if need something like kyc

[DPHOR]

If you weren't able to send out your coin or tokens from tronlink pro.. At first you need to update your wallet (app) to the lastest version and then have enough Tron to cover as fee on your transaction. Note that you can not send any other coin inside your app without you having tron gas to cover the fee and charges that maybe needed. Then about the scam token sent to you, whenever a transaction is carried out this usually happens and I have experienced this with BSC chain when making transactions and you would get some scam token, they also usually send it as NFTs showing you the dollar equivalent so that you would hastily go swap it and get phished.

[NotATether]

ok the site is a sitem don't focus in my platform...... that's not mean nothing for my friend.. he did different job, is not connected to my business... only me I am a bad boy...
I tel him to send to tether a message if need something like kyc

The situation now seems very strange, but your friend still has to write to Tether for appeal.

He probably has to provide KYC, business records, source of funds, proof of address, and whatever.