A very rich person who had a lot of digital money lost more than $70 million because someone tricked them into giving their money away. The bad person pretended to have an email address that looked almost the same as the rich person's, so they sent their money there by mistake. They tried to ask for their money back, and even offered to give the bad person some extra money if they would return it. But the bad person did not answer at first. Then later, the bad person suddenly said they would give the money back, and the rich person got all their money back. Read from source...

- The title is misleading and sensationalized, as it implies that the whale got their money back, when in reality, they only contacted the attacker after the theft.
- The article does not provide any evidence or sources to support the claim that the whale lost more than $70M to a phishing scam, which is a very specific and rare type of cybercrime. It also does not mention how much of that amount was recovered, if any.
- The article uses vague and ambiguous terms like "phisher", "address poisoning attack", and "similar-looking address", without explaining what they mean or how they work in the context of cryptocurrency transactions. This makes the article confusing and uninformative for readers who are not familiar with these concepts.
- The article includes irrelevant details such as the whale's attempt to contact the attacker, their offer of 10% compensation, and the lack of communication from the other side, which do not add any value or insight to the story. These details could also be seen as an attempt to create suspense and drama, rather than reporting facts.
- The article ends with a question that is unrelated to the main topic, and seems to be designed to elicit emotional responses from readers, such as sympathy for the whale, anger at the attacker, or curiosity about the outcome. This question also implies that there is some uncertainty or doubt about whether the whale got their money back or not, which contradicts the previous statement in the article.
- The article lacks any critical analysis or evaluation of the events and actions described, as well as the implications and consequences for the victims, the attackers, and the cryptocurrency community. It also does not provide any suggestions or recommendations for how to prevent or mitigate such scams in the future.
- The article is poorly written and structured, with grammatical errors, inconsistent tense changes, and abrupt transitions between paragraphs. It also uses informal language and slang terms that are not appropriate for a professional or academic publication.