That USDT payment,have you reallyreceived it in full?

The agreed amount due is 200 USDT, but this confirmed transfer is 195 USDT, with no other payments. The token, network, and full receiving address have been independently verified as correct. No other funds have been received. Based only on this information, which conclusion is valid?

1. It is confirmed, so the full 200 USDT has been received
2. 5 USDT is still missing; it is not paid in full
3. Being 5 USDT short means the token received is fake

Correct answer: B · 5 USDT is still missing; it is not paid in full

200 − 195 = 5 USDT. “Confirmed” does not mean “paid in full”. Compare the entire amounts due and received, digit by digit, including units and decimal places. A confirmed transaction is no reason to skip checking the difference.

Reference:Etherscan：What is a Transaction Hash (Txn hash)?

In this example, the agreed amount due is 6,800 USDT (six thousand eight hundred). A trusted source shows you actually received 6.800 USDT (six point eight), with the correct token, network, and address. Here “,” separates thousands and “.” is the decimal point. Which answer is correct?

1. Six thousand eight hundred was received; payment is complete
2. Six point eight was received; 6,793.2 USDT is still missing
3. Remove the punctuation and both are 6800, so the amounts match

Correct answer: B · Six point eight was received; 6,793.2 USDT is still missing

6.800 = 6.8, not 6,800. The difference is 6,800 − 6.8 = 6,793.2 USDT. Check every digit, unit, and decimal point. Similar-looking numbers do not prove payment in full.

Reference:Etherscan：What is a Transaction Hash (Txn hash)?

Split payments are allowed by agreement, and 500 USDT is due. You independently verify two different transactions of 180 and 320 USDT. The token, network, and address are correct, both are in your available balance, and neither has been counted twice. Is the amount paid in full?

1. No; only the last payment of 320 counts
2. No; split payments are never valid
3. The total is 500 USDT; the amount is paid in full

Correct answer: C · The total is 500 USDT; the amount is paid in full

180 + 320 = 500 USDT. Since split payments are allowed here, distinct verified receipts can be added together. This verifies the amount, not the payer's identity or the overall safety of the transaction.

Reference:Etherscan：What is a Transaction Hash (Txn hash)?

The other party sends a screenshot marked “Transfer successful” and urges you to deliver. You have not found the corresponding payment in your own wallet or platform deposit history. What is the most reasonable next step?

1. Check your own receipt records first, then look up the transaction hash on the matching network
2. The screenshot has the platform logo, so you can confirm receipt immediately
3. Ask for another screenshot; that counts as double verification

Correct answer: A · Check your own receipt records first, then look up the transaction hash on the matching network

A screenshot cannot replace independent verification. Use a trusted entry point to check your receipts, then verify the matching network's transaction hash, status, token transfer details, full receiving address, and amount.

Reference:Etherscan：What is a Transaction Hash (Txn hash)?

You independently open the correct network explorer and find a successful transaction. However, the full receiving address in its USDT transfer details differs from the agreed address. What can this record alone establish?

1. If the hash can be found, it proves you were paid
2. A matching amount is enough to prove it is your payment
3. This record does not prove payment to the agreed address

Correct answer: C · This record does not prove payment to the agreed address

A searchable hash does not mean the right person was paid. Check the actual receiving address in the token transfer details, not just the contract address, amount, or “Success” label on the transaction page.

Reference:Etherscan：What is a Transaction Hash (Txn hash)?

The other party claims to have paid 100 USDT twice but provides the same network and transaction hash both times. You verify that the transaction contains only one 100 USDT transfer to you, with no other receipts. How much should you record?

1. 200 USDT, because they sent payment evidence twice
2. 100 USDT; do not count the same transfer twice
3. 0 USDT; repeating the hash proves the token must be fake

Correct answer: B · 100 USDT; do not count the same transfer twice

The scenario contains only one verified 100 USDT receipt. The same hash on the same network is not evidence of a second payment. Check individual transfer details when reconciling to prevent duplicate credits.

Reference:Etherscan：What is a Transaction Hash (Txn hash)?

The displayed name is USDT, and both the displayed quantity and agreed amount due are 200, but the token contract and network remain unverified. You have only seen a token with the same name and quantity, without checking its contract on that network against a trusted official source. What can you conclude now?

1. If it is called USDT and the amount matches, it is fine
2. It is unverified, so it must be fake USDT
3. Cannot confirm yet; check the contract and network first

Correct answer: C · Cannot confirm yet; check the contract and network first

A name, icon, or quantity alone cannot prove this is the agreed USDT. Use an official source you trust to check the full token contract for that network and confirm the receiving platform supports it. Unverified does not mean definitely fake.

Reference:Tether：Supported Protocols and Integration Guidelines

The payer says, “This address also starts with 0x, so any network supporting USDT will do.” You have not checked the receiving platform's network requirements. What should you do?

1. First match the sending network to the network specified and supported on the deposit page
2. Matching address formats guarantee successful credit
3. Choose the network with the lowest fee without checking deposit settings

Correct answer: A · First match the sending network to the network specified and supported on the deposit page

An address's appearance cannot verify the network. Check the receiving platform's supported networks and deposit instructions for the asset, then verify the sender's selection. A network mismatch may prevent normal crediting, and recovery is not guaranteed.

Reference:Binance：Why Hasn’t My Deposit Been Credited?

You find the official USDT token contract on a network. A friend says, “Send the money to this contract and it will reach your exchange account.” Which answer is correct?

1. The official contract is more reliable; send directly to it
2. Do not do that; use the address and network the platform provides for this deposit
3. Contract address and personal deposit address are just two names for the same thing

Correct answer: B · Do not do that; use the address and network the platform provides for this deposit

A token contract identifies and manages a token. It is not your personal deposit address assigned by a platform. Obtain the receiving address, network, and any other required details from the platform's official deposit page. Looking up a contract is not the same as finding a receiving address.

Reference:Binance：Why Hasn’t My Deposit Been Credited?

The on-chain record is confirmed, the exchange balance has not updated, and the platform deposit credit status needs further checks. There is no evidence that the platform has credited the funds or made them available. Which statement stays within the known facts?

1. Only the on-chain status is confirmed; check platform credit separately
2. On-chain confirmation means the platform funds are available
3. The unchanged platform balance means the money was definitely stolen

Correct answer: A · Only the on-chain status is confirmed; check platform credit separately

Platforms may have their own confirmation counts, supported networks, and deposit-processing requirements. Check official deposit records, crediting rules, and service notices. If needed, contact support through the platform's own official channels. Do not guarantee credit or assume a delay means theft.

Reference:Binance：Why Hasn’t My Deposit Been Credited?

The other party gives you a transaction hash. On the correct network explorer, you independently find the status Pending, and your receipt records do not show completion. How should you assess it now?

1. Having a hash means payment is complete
2. Pending means it will never succeed
3. It is still pending and cannot be treated as a completed receipt

Correct answer: C · It is still pending and cannot be treated as a completed receipt

A transaction hash is a tracking identifier, not a guarantee of receipt. Pending is not the same as successfully completed. Keep checking the final execution status and your own receipts without promising a fixed completion time.

Reference:Binance：Why Hasn’t My Deposit Been Credited?

Someone says, “Whatever chain, wallet, or exchange you use, you must buy TRX before sending USDT.” How should you respond?

1. Check the network and the wallet or platform's actual fee rules first; do not apply this claim universally
2. Follow the advice; every USDT transfer has the same fee rules
3. No need to check; USDT transfers never have fees

Correct answer: A · Check the network and the wallet or platform's actual fee rules first; do not apply this claim universally

Fees depend on the network and product. A wallet may use the network's native coin or offer other ways to pay fees. Platform withdrawals have separate rules. Check official instructions and the fee shown before sending, rather than assuming everyone must buy TRX.

Reference:MetaMask：How gas fees, limits, and network fees work

Someone privately messages you claiming to be wallet support. They say you must send your seed phrase or private key so they can locate your missing USDT deposit. What should you choose?

1. Send only half the seed phrase to be safer
2. Refuse and contact support through the wallet's official channels
3. Their avatar has an official logo, so it is safe to provide it

Correct answer: B · Refuse and contact support through the wallet's official channels

Seed phrases and private keys can control a wallet; they are not payment-checking details. Do not give them to anyone claiming to be support or enter them on a page they provide. Navigate to trusted official support yourself.

Reference:MetaMask：Failed transaction scams

An unfamiliar site says you only need to “connect your wallet to verify receipt”, but the prompt asks to let a contract spend unlimited USDT. Which conclusion is correct?

1. This is just a normal connection that exposes your address, with no asset permissions
2. There is absolutely no risk as long as you do not give the site your password
3. This is a token spending approval, not a normal connection; reject an unclear request

Correct answer: C · This is a token spending approval, not a normal connection; reject an unclear request

Connecting a wallet and granting token spending permissions are different. Unlimited approval may allow the approved contract to transfer that token without asking you to confirm each transfer. Check the spender, asset, and allowance. Do not sign requests you do not understand.

Reference:MetaMask：What are token approvals?

An unfamiliar token suddenly appears in your wallet with a “redeem USDT” link in its name. The page says a signature is all you need to claim it. What is the safest approach?

1. Do not follow the unfamiliar link; independently verify the source and avoid blind signatures or approvals
2. Appearing in your wallet means it was officially reviewed and is safe to claim
3. Sign first and investigate later; signatures cannot affect assets

Correct answer: A · Do not follow the unfamiliar link; independently verify the source and avoid blind signatures or approvals

Unknown airdrops and token links may be phishing bait designed to steal seed phrases or gain asset permissions. A token appearing in your wallet does not make its link trustworthy. Check what you are signing; signatures cannot all be treated as risk-free.

Reference:MetaMask：Failed transaction scams

A platform recommended by a stranger lets you withdraw a small amount of USDT, then pushes you to make a large deposit. How should you interpret that small success?

1. It proves only that this small withdrawal succeeded, not that the platform or future transactions are safe
2. Being able to withdraw a small amount proves the platform is reliable
3. Since you received real money, future checks are unnecessary

Correct answer: A · It proves only that this small withdrawal succeeded, not that the platform or future transactions are safe

One small success cannot establish trustworthiness. Scammers may allow small early withdrawals to build trust and encourage larger deposits. Passing a test is not a safety guarantee for a large transfer or investment.

Reference:FBI IC3：Investment Fraud

The other party sends only a screenshot claiming an overpayment of 50 USDT and demands an immediate refund to a different, new address. You have not verified the actual receipt. What should you do first?

1. Refund first to avoid damaging the relationship
2. Independently verify the original receipt, any actual overpayment, and the refund request's source before deciding
3. Refund the screenshot amount without checking the address again

Correct answer: B · Independently verify the original receipt, any actual overpayment, and the refund request's source before deciding

First establish whether there really was an overpayment. Do not make a separate transfer because of pressure or a screenshot. Check your own accounts, original transaction, and the request's source. A genuine receipt does not automatically validate a new refund address or requester. Use official procedures for platform orders.

Reference:Etherscan：What is a Transaction Hash (Txn hash)?

“Support” on an unfamiliar investment platform repeatedly urges you to send extra USDT to a designated private address as an “unfreezing tax” before withdrawing the profits shown on-screen. What is the most reasonable choice?

1. One more payment will definitely enable withdrawal
2. All legitimate platforms charge fees this way
3. Stop sending more, verify independently, and preserve records

Correct answer: C · Stop sending more, verify independently, and preserve records

Demanding another upfront payment for “tax” or an “unfreezing fee” is a common advance-fee scam warning sign. Displayed profits and support promises are not evidence. Preserve records and verify through official channels you find yourself. This question is not tax advice and does not guarantee recovery.

Reference:FBI IC3：Investment Fraud