Upbit L2 Project GIWA: Mainnet Not Live, No Possibility of RPC Leakage

The crypto market moves fast, and so do rumors. On September 27, the team behind GIWA, an L2 project associated with Upbit, clarified that its mainnet has not yet launched. As a result, claims about a “leaked RPC” should be treated with extreme caution: if the mainnet is not live, there is no legitimate mainnet RPC endpoint to leak.

For users, traders, and builders watching new Layer 2 networks in 2025, this incident is a useful reminder: early-stage chain narratives can attract both genuine interest and opportunistic scams. Before connecting a wallet, adding a custom network, or signing any transaction, users should verify whether the network is actually live and whether the information comes from an official channel.

Why the “RPC Leak” Claim Does Not Make Sense Before Mainnet

In blockchain infrastructure, an RPC endpoint is a gateway that allows wallets, dApps, and developer tools to communicate with a blockchain node. Through RPC, users can query balances, submit transactions, estimate gas, and interact with smart contracts. Ethereum’s own documentation explains JSON-RPC as the standard interface used by clients and applications to communicate with the network via defined methods and requests, as outlined in the official Ethereum JSON-RPC API documentation.

This matters because an RPC endpoint is tied to an operating network. If a project’s mainnet has not gone live, there should be no active mainnet RPC for users to rely on. Therefore, any message claiming that a GIWA mainnet RPC has been leaked is highly likely to be misleading, fabricated, or part of a social-engineering attempt.

In practical terms, a false RPC claim may be used to push users into:

• Adding a malicious custom network to their wallet
• Visiting fake explorer or bridge websites
• Signing approvals on counterfeit dApps
• Believing they are interacting with an early-access mainnet
• Sending funds to addresses controlled by scammers

The danger is not that a non-existent mainnet RPC was exposed. The danger is that users may act on a fake technical narrative before checking the basics.

L2 Hype Creates a Bigger Attack Surface

Layer 2 networks remain one of the most active areas in crypto. As Ethereum scaling continues to evolve, L2 ecosystems are competing on lower fees, faster transactions, application-specific infrastructure, and better user experience. The broader L2 landscape can be tracked through independent data platforms such as L2BEAT, which monitors scaling networks, risk assumptions, and ecosystem metrics.

At the same time, this attention makes new L2 projects attractive targets for misinformation. When a project is still unreleased or in an early technical phase, users often search for privileged access, airdrop opportunities, testnet tasks, bridge links, and unofficial guides. Scammers know this behavior well.

In 2025, a typical scam does not always begin with an obvious “send funds here” request. It may start with something that looks technical:

• “Private RPC leaked”
• “Early mainnet access”
• “Claim eligibility checker”
• “Genesis bridge now open”
• “Developer endpoint discovered”
• “Add this chain manually”

These messages are designed to create urgency. If users believe they are early, they may skip verification. That is exactly when phishing risk increases.

How Users Should Verify GIWA-Related Information

For any emerging L2 project, including GIWA, users should follow a simple verification process before taking action.

1. Check whether mainnet is officially live

Do not rely on screenshots, reposts, or forwarded messages. A real mainnet launch should be announced through official project communication channels, usually with consistent details such as chain ID, explorer, bridge, documentation, security notes, and supported infrastructure.

If those details are missing, incomplete, or circulating only through unofficial accounts, assume the network is not ready for public use.

2. Avoid manually adding unknown RPC endpoints

Adding a custom RPC is common in Web3, but it should not be done casually. A malicious or misleading RPC endpoint may feed incorrect data to a wallet interface, confuse users about transaction status, or direct them toward fake applications.

While an RPC endpoint alone cannot drain assets without user signatures, it can become part of a broader phishing flow. The real risk usually appears when users are pushed to sign approvals, interact with contracts, or bridge funds through fake front ends.

3. Treat “early access” as a high-risk phrase

Scammers often frame fake links as limited opportunities. If a message suggests that only fast users can access a new L2, claim rewards, or connect before public launch, slow down. Legitimate infrastructure launches rarely depend on users rushing through unverified links.

4. Verify contracts and approvals before signing

Before approving any token or interacting with a smart contract, users should understand what permission they are granting. Token approvals can allow a contract to move assets from a wallet. If a malicious contract receives unlimited approval, funds may be at risk even after the initial transaction.

Security-conscious users should regularly review token approvals using reputable tools and avoid unlimited permissions unless necessary. For Ethereum and EVM-compatible ecosystems, block explorers such as Etherscan are commonly used to inspect addresses, contracts, and transactions.

What Developers Should Watch For

Developers are also targets in early L2 narratives. Fake RPCs, counterfeit SDKs, and cloned documentation can be used to compromise developer environments or trick teams into deploying contracts to the wrong network.

Before building around a new chain, developers should verify:

• Official documentation domain
• Chain ID and network parameters
• Explorer availability
• Bridge contracts and deployment addresses
• GitHub repositories and package sources
• Whether the network is testnet, devnet, or mainnet
• Security model and upgrade assumptions

For Layer 2 projects, technical architecture matters. Users and developers should understand whether a network uses optimistic rollups, zero-knowledge proofs, validiums, or other scaling designs. The Ethereum Foundation’s overview of Layer 2 scaling is a useful starting point for understanding how different approaches work.

FUD vs. Real Risk: How to Think Clearly

The GIWA clarification is not just about one rumor. It highlights a broader problem in crypto: technical-sounding misinformation can spread quickly because many users do not have time to verify every infrastructure detail.

There are two opposite mistakes to avoid.

The first is panic. Not every rumor means assets are in danger. If a project has not launched mainnet, claims about mainnet infrastructure should be evaluated logically.

The second is complacency. Even if the rumor itself is false, scammers can still use it to create malicious links, fake tutorials, and phishing campaigns. The correct response is not fear, but disciplined verification.

A healthy approach is:

• Do not act on urgency
• Check official sources first
• Avoid connecting wallets to unknown sites
• Confirm whether the network exists
• Read transaction prompts carefully
• Keep long-term assets away from experimental interactions

Security Takeaways for GIWA Watchers

For users following GIWA or any new L2 project, the main points are straightforward:

• GIWA’s mainnet has not launched, so a real mainnet RPC leak is not possible at this stage.
• Claims about hidden RPC access should be treated as suspicious.
• Fake RPC narratives may be used to lure users into phishing sites or malicious contract interactions.
• Users should wait for official launch details before adding networks or bridging funds.
• Wallet security and transaction verification remain essential, especially around new chain launches.

Final Thoughts

New L2 ecosystems can bring meaningful innovation to crypto, but early-stage attention often attracts misinformation. The GIWA situation is a reminder that users should separate technical facts from market noise. If there is no live mainnet, there is no legitimate mainnet RPC endpoint for the public to use.

For users who actively explore new networks, a hardware wallet can add an important layer of protection by keeping private keys offline and requiring physical confirmation for transactions. OneKey is designed for self-custody users who want secure key management while interacting with Web3. Still, no wallet can protect users from every bad decision: always verify the network, the website, and the transaction before signing.