Why do EVM-compatible chains attract more drainer activity than non-EVM chains?

Why EVM Chains Are Easier for Drainer Operators

EVM compatibility does not make a chain more secure or less secure by itself, but it does make the attacker workflow more portable. Drainer operators can reuse the same wallet-draining logic across many chains because the transaction model, token standards, and common approval patterns stay familiar. The result is a lower engineering cost per target chain and faster expansion when a new EVM network gains user attention.

That portability matters because many drainer kits are built around predictable wallet interactions, not chain-specific novelty. When the same approvals, permits, and router patterns appear across multiple networks, the operator mainly needs to adjust network parameters rather than rebuild the fraud flow. Non-EVM chains often break that reuse advantage, so the attacker has to invest more time in custom support before the campaign is worth scaling.

What Changes When a Chain Is Not EVM-Compatible

Non-EVM ecosystems tend to raise the operator's setup burden in several practical ways. Different transaction formats, signing paths, token representations, and application tooling can force bespoke development and testing. That increases friction for commodity attackers, especially those buying or renting prebuilt kits that were optimized for the EVM stack.

The economic effect is simple: if a drainer kit can be redeployed with minor configuration changes, criminals can respond quickly to new launches, airdrops, and hype cycles. If the chain requires custom engineering, the attacker must spend more effort for less immediate coverage. That usually shifts their attention toward ecosystems where their tooling already works and where victims are abundant enough to justify the reuse.

Why Exposure, Not Just Technology, Drives Target Selection

Attackers are not only selecting the easiest protocol surface, they are selecting the easiest path to monetisation. EVM chains usually offer a larger pool of compatible wallets, dapps, routers, and liquidity venues, which means a larger number of familiar interaction patterns to abuse. That makes campaign planning easier and lowers the chance that a support mismatch will break the drain flow mid-operation.

For defenders, the important point is that chain compatibility shapes attacker operational efficiency more than it shapes exploit sophistication. The more a chain resembles the rest of the EVM ecosystem, the more reusable the malicious infrastructure becomes. That is why rapid launches, large user inflows, and identical approval UX can attract drainer attention even when the underlying chain itself is not uniquely vulnerable.

Risk and Threat Considerations

Drainer activity follows operational convenience, so ecosystems that maximise reuse for existing fraud kits tend to inherit a larger share of opportunistic abuse. The risk is not that EVM compatibility is inherently unsafe, but that it compresses attacker setup time and makes scaling across chains easier once one campaign is built.

Failure mechanism: Attackers reuse the same draining logic across EVM-compatible networks by swapping only chain identifiers, RPC endpoints, and target-specific parameters, while non-EVM support often requires custom engineering that slows deployment.

Impact: More EVM-compatible chains become economically attractive targets sooner after launch, which increases the volume of phishing, approval abuse, and wallet-drain attempts against users on those networks.

Practitioner Guidance

What to verify: Treat chain popularity and EVM compatibility as threat-amplifying conditions, not as root causes. If a new network preserves familiar approval and routing patterns, assume commodity drainer infrastructure will arrive quickly and validate whether your users are being exposed through the same wallet flows already seen elsewhere.

What practitioners underestimate: The attacker advantage is often reuse, not innovation. A chain can become a target simply because it is easy to add to an existing kit, so security teams should monitor user-facing wallet interaction patterns and phishing exposure as the ecosystem grows, rather than waiting for bespoke exploits to appear.

Practitioner takeaway: The practical security question is not whether a chain is EVM-compatible, but whether that compatibility lets existing fraud tooling scale faster than your detection, education, and response can keep up.

Related resources from NHI Mgmt Group

• When do non-human identities pose the greatest risk to organizations?
• Why do non-human identities create more risk than many human accounts?
• Why do non-human identities create more remediation risk than many human accounts?
• Why is visibility important for Non-Human Identities?