pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.27805 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-30 · 💻 cs.SE

Recognition: unknown

Feature-Centric Methodology for Analyzing Cross-Chain NFT Migration Compatibility

Mohd Sameen Chishti , Damilare Peter Oyinloye , Jingyue Li
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 06:52 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.SE
keywords cross-chain NFT migrationcompatibility assessmentfour-layer architecturefeature specificationprimitive-level mappingmigration methodologyNFT features
0
0 comments X

The pith

NFT features can be classified as preserved, partially mismatched, or incompatible for cross-chain migration using a four-phase analysis on a four-layer blockchain architecture.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents a structured approach to check whether an NFT's features will continue to function after transfer between blockchains. It models each NFT as a set of features resting on four standard layers: cryptographic primitives, state management, transaction processing, and ownership. The method proceeds through four phases that specify source features, trace their dependencies down to those layers, profile the target platform's capabilities, and rate each feature as natively preserved, partially mismatched, or completely mismatched. A proof-of-concept application to Ethereum-to-Solana migration reveals concrete cases where features break due to differences in state organization and ownership rules. If the approach holds, developers can identify redesign needs or outright barriers before committing resources to an actual data transfer.

Core claim

We derive a four-layer NFT architecture based on standard blockchain stacks that distinguishes cryptographic, state-management, transaction-processing, and ownership primitives with explicit upward dependencies. We conceptualize an NFT as a bundle of features and define successful cross-chain migration as the preservation of these features. Grounded in this model, we propose a four-phase migration analysis methodology comprising source feature specification, primitive-level dependency mapping, target platform profiling, and compatibility assessment, which classifies each feature as natively preserved, partially mismatched, or completely mismatched. Evaluation through a proof-of-concept on an

What carries the argument

The four-layer NFT architecture (cryptographic, state-management, transaction-processing, and ownership primitives with upward dependencies) that supports the four-phase migration analysis methodology for mapping features and classifying their compatibility.

Load-bearing premise

The four-layer architecture and the mapping from features to primitives at each layer are sufficient to predict real migration outcomes without further empirical validation beyond the described proof-of-concept.

What would settle it

Perform a live Ethereum-to-Solana NFT migration for one feature the method labels completely mismatched and observe whether that feature truly fails on the target chain or unexpectedly succeeds because of unmodeled platform behaviors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.27805 by Damilare Peter Oyinloye, Jingyue Li, Mohd Sameen Chishti.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Standard Blockchain Architecture adapted from layered view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Inter-layer dependencies in the NFT architecture and view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Cross-chain NFT migration refers to the process of transferring digital assets along with their associated functionalities and guarantees between distinct blockchain platforms. However, architectural divergences among these platforms introduce critical challenges, often resulting in features that fail to behave as intended. While protocol-level mechanisms can coordinate data transfer, they are insufficient to resolve deeper compatibility issues arising from fundamental differences in state organization, transaction execution, and ownership representation. Thus, the critical challenge lies in predicting which NFT features can be preserved, which require redesign, and which are fundamentally incompatible, prior to undertaking costly migration attempts. To address this challenge, we first derive a tailored four-layer NFT architecture based on standard blockchain stacks, distinguishing cryptographic, state-management, transaction-processing, and ownership primitives, with explicit upward dependencies. Building on this architecture, we conceptualize an NFT as a bundle of features and define successful cross-chain NFT migration as the preservation of these features. Grounded in this model, we propose a four-phase migration analysis methodology comprising source feature specification, primitive-level dependency mapping, target platform profiling, and compatibility assessment, which classifies each feature as natively preserved, partially mismatched, or completely mismatched. We evaluate this methodology through a proof-of-concept analysis of Ethereum-to-Solana NFT migration, identifying several incompatibility issues that hinder seamless NFT migration.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims to introduce a feature-centric methodology for analyzing cross-chain NFT migration compatibility. It first derives a four-layer NFT architecture (cryptographic, state-management, transaction-processing, and ownership primitives with explicit upward dependencies) from standard blockchain stacks. Building on this, it defines successful migration as feature preservation and proposes a four-phase process (source feature specification, primitive-level dependency mapping, target platform profiling, and compatibility assessment) that classifies each feature as natively preserved, partially mismatched, or completely mismatched. The approach is evaluated via a proof-of-concept static analysis of Ethereum-to-Solana NFT migration that identifies several incompatibility issues.

Significance. If the four-layer mapping and classification scheme prove predictive of real migration outcomes, the methodology would offer a valuable structured framework for anticipating and addressing compatibility challenges in cross-chain NFT transfers, going beyond protocol-level data movement. The explicit phase separation and feature-centric view represent a clear conceptual contribution with potential utility for developers and researchers in blockchain interoperability. The absence of fitted parameters or self-referential definitions strengthens the framework's transparency.

major comments (3)
  1. [Four-phase migration analysis methodology and four-layer NFT architecture derivation] The central claim that the four-phase process correctly classifies features as natively preserved, partially mismatched, or completely mismatched depends on the four-layer architecture and primitive dependency mapping being both complete and predictive of actual behavior. The manuscript provides no formal argument, completeness proof, or empirical test that all relevant feature interactions (including emergent platform-specific semantics) are captured by the static decomposition into cryptographic, state-management, transaction-processing, and ownership primitives.
  2. [Proof-of-concept analysis (Ethereum-to-Solana)] The proof-of-concept evaluation identifies incompatibility issues through static analysis of Ethereum-to-Solana migration but reports no actual migration execution, post-migration testing of feature behavior, quantitative metrics, error analysis, or comparison against observed outcomes from existing cross-chain NFT projects or alternative approaches. This leaves the predictive validity of the classifications unsupported.
  3. [Derivation of four-layer NFT architecture] The derivation of the four-layer architecture is presented as tailored from standard blockchain stacks, yet the manuscript supplies no systematic mapping from established NFT standards (such as ERC-721 or ERC-1155) or other common implementations to these layers, which is load-bearing for the subsequent dependency mapping and classification steps.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'explicit upward dependencies' without a concise definition or example; adding one would improve accessibility.
  2. [Evaluation] A summary table listing the specific features analyzed in the proof-of-concept along with their assigned classifications would enhance readability and allow readers to quickly assess the methodology's output.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which help clarify the scope and limitations of our conceptual framework. We address each major point below, with revisions planned to improve transparency and contextualization while preserving the paper's focus as a methodology proposal rather than a formally verified or empirically exhaustive study.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim that the four-phase process correctly classifies features as natively preserved, partially mismatched, or completely mismatched depends on the four-layer architecture and primitive dependency mapping being both complete and predictive of actual behavior. The manuscript provides no formal argument, completeness proof, or empirical test that all relevant feature interactions (including emergent platform-specific semantics) are captured by the static decomposition into cryptographic, state-management, transaction-processing, and ownership primitives.

    Authors: We agree that the four-layer architecture and four-phase methodology constitute a heuristic decomposition rather than a formally complete model. The framework is derived from common blockchain stack patterns to enable practical feature analysis, but it does not include a proof of completeness or exhaustive coverage of emergent semantics. In revision, we will add an explicit limitations subsection stating that the approach may miss platform-specific interactions and is offered as a structured starting point for developers, not a guaranteed predictor. This clarification addresses the concern without altering the core contribution. revision: partial

  2. Referee: The proof-of-concept evaluation identifies incompatibility issues through static analysis of Ethereum-to-Solana migration but reports no actual migration execution, post-migration testing of feature behavior, quantitative metrics, error analysis, or comparison against observed outcomes from existing cross-chain NFT projects or alternative approaches. This leaves the predictive validity of the classifications unsupported.

    Authors: The PoC is presented strictly as an illustration of applying the four-phase process via static analysis, not as empirical validation of predictive accuracy. We did not perform runtime migrations or collect quantitative metrics, as the work prioritizes methodology definition over large-scale experimentation. In the revised version, we will expand the evaluation discussion to reference documented challenges from existing cross-chain NFT projects (e.g., metadata loss or ownership model differences reported in bridges like Wormhole) and note alignment with our classifications. Full runtime validation and metrics are acknowledged as valuable future work. revision: partial

  3. Referee: The derivation of the four-layer architecture is presented as tailored from standard blockchain stacks, yet the manuscript supplies no systematic mapping from established NFT standards (such as ERC-721 or ERC-1155) or other common implementations to these layers, which is load-bearing for the subsequent dependency mapping and classification steps.

    Authors: We will strengthen the derivation section by adding a new subsection (and optional appendix) that systematically maps ERC-721 and ERC-1155 features to the four layers. For example, ERC-721 ownership and transfer functions will be explicitly linked to the ownership and transaction-processing primitives, with dependency arrows shown. This addition makes the tailoring from standard stacks more transparent and directly supports the dependency mapping used in the Ethereum-to-Solana case study. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: methodology built from external blockchain primitives

full rationale

The paper explicitly derives its four-layer architecture (cryptographic, state-management, transaction-processing, ownership) from 'standard blockchain stacks' with 'explicit upward dependencies' and then defines NFT features and migration success in terms of that model. The four-phase methodology is presented as a direct analytical consequence of this construction, applied illustratively in the Ethereum-to-Solana PoC. No equations, fitted parameters, or predictions that reduce to the inputs by construction appear. No self-citations are referenced as load-bearing, no uniqueness theorems are invoked, and no ansatzes are smuggled. The framework is self-contained as a conceptual mapping tool whose predictive power is left for external validation rather than being internally forced.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the untested premise that the authors' four-layer decomposition captures all relevant NFT dependencies and that feature classification predicts migration success. No free parameters are visible; the architecture itself is the main invented modeling construct.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption A four-layer NFT architecture (cryptographic, state-management, transaction-processing, ownership primitives) with explicit upward dependencies accurately represents NFT functionality across blockchains.
    Stated as derived from standard blockchain stacks in the abstract.
invented entities (1)
  • Four-layer NFT architecture no independent evidence
    purpose: To enable primitive-level dependency mapping for compatibility assessment
    New conceptual model introduced by the paper; no independent falsifiable evidence supplied beyond the POC description.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5532 in / 1222 out tokens · 66898 ms · 2026-05-07T06:52:09.371707+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references

  1. [1]

    How many blockchains are there, and what are the different types?

    Moralis, “How many blockchains are there, and what are the different types?.” https://moralis.io/ how-many-blockchains-are-there-and-what-are-the-different-types/,

  2. [2]

    Accessed on 2025-10-28

    2025

  3. [3]

    Towards blockchain interop- erability: a comprehensive survey on cross-chain solutions,

    W. Li, Z. Liu, J. Chen, Z. Liu, and Q. He, “Towards blockchain interop- erability: a comprehensive survey on cross-chain solutions,”Blockchain: Research and Applications, vol. 6, no. 3, p. 100286, 2025

    2025

  4. [4]

    A security analysis of web3.0 cross-chain bridges,

    S. Chen, “A security analysis of web3.0 cross-chain bridges,” inPro- ceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computer, Artificial Intelligence and Control Engineering, CAICE ’25, (New York, NY , USA), p. 213–217, Association for Computing Machinery, 2025

    2025

  5. [5]

    Interchain foundation’s 2024 cross-chain interoperability report spotlights top ten cross-chain routes exceed $41b in volume in ten months

    The Defiant, “Interchain foundation’s 2024 cross-chain interoperability report spotlights top ten cross-chain routes exceed $41b in volume in ten months.” https://thedefiant.io/news/press-releases/ interchain-foundations-2024-cross-chain-interoperability-report-spotlights-top-ten-cross-chain-routes-exceed-41bn-in-volume-in-ten-months,

    2024

  6. [6]

    Accessed on: 2025-10-28

    2025

  7. [7]

    A framework for efficient cross-chain token transfers in blockchain networks,

    H. Guo, H. Liang, J. Huang, W. Ou, W. Han, Q. Zhang, and R. Zhang, “A framework for efficient cross-chain token transfers in blockchain networks,”Journal of King Saud University - Computer and Information Sciences, vol. 36, no. 2, p. 101968, 2024

    2024

  8. [8]

    A review of the key challenges of non-fungible tokens,

    O. Ali, M. Momin, A. Shrestha, R. Das, F. Alhajj, and Y . K. Dwivedi, “A review of the key challenges of non-fungible tokens,”Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 187, p. 122248, 2023

    2023

  9. [9]

    Security of cross-chain bridges: Attack surfaces, defenses, and open problems,

    M. Zhang, X. Zhang, Y . Zhang, and Z. Lin, “Security of cross-chain bridges: Attack surfaces, defenses, and open problems,” inProceedings of the 27th International Symposium on Research in Attacks, Intrusions and Defenses, RAID ’24, (New York, NY , USA), p. 298–316, Associ- ation for Computing Machinery, 2024

    2024

  10. [10]

    Polygon paid y00ts developers $3m to mi- grate from solana

    “Polygon paid y00ts developers $3m to mi- grate from solana..” https://beincrypto.com/ polygon-paid-y00ts-developer-3m-to-migrate-from-solana/, 2023. Accessed: 2025-01-02

    2023

  11. [11]

    Premature downgrade of rtfkt’s account by cloudflare raises questions about service provider accountability

    “Premature downgrade of rtfkt’s account by cloudflare raises questions about service provider accountability..” https://www.tekedia.com/ premature-downgrade-of-rtfkts-account-by-cloudflare-raises-questions-about-service-provider-accountability/,

  12. [13]

    Nft community bashes pixelmon for disappointing in-game art quality

    “Nft community bashes pixelmon for disappointing in-game art quality..” https://hypebeast.com/2022/2/ nft-community-disappointed-in-pixelmon-in-game-art-quality, 2022. Accessed: 2025-05-01

    2022

  13. [14]

    Whale nft bridge goes live: Ton to solana migration launches on bridgemedaddy.com

    “Whale nft bridge goes live: Ton to solana migration launches on bridgemedaddy.com.” https://decrypt.co/314301/ whale-nft-bridge-goes-live-ton-to-solana-migration-launches-on-bridgemedaddy-com/,

  14. [15]

    Accessed: 2025-05-01

    2025

  15. [16]

    Cross-chain publication nfts for academic publishing,

    T. J. Espel, “Cross-chain publication nfts for academic publishing,” Available at SSRN 5611430, 2025

    2025

  16. [17]

    ERC-721 non-fungible token standard

    Ethereum Developers, “ERC-721 non-fungible token standard.” https: //ethereum.org/developers/docs/standards/tokens/erc-721/, 2025. Ac- cessed on 2025-10-01

    2025

  17. [18]

    Token Program Documentation

    Solana Foundation, “Token Program Documentation.” https://solana. com/docs/tokens, 2025. Accessed on 2025-10-20

    2025

  18. [19]

    Metaplex Token Metadata,

    Metaplex, “Metaplex Token Metadata,” 2025. Accessed on: 2025-09-23

    2025

  19. [20]

    Cadence: The resource-oriented programming lan- guage

    Flow Developers, “Cadence: The resource-oriented programming lan- guage.” https://flow.com/cadence, 2025. Accessed on 2025-08-10

    2025

  20. [21]

    Michelson: The smart contract language

    Tezos Foundation, “Michelson: The smart contract language.” https: //docs.tezos.com/smart-contracts/languages/michelson, 2025. Accessed on 2025-08-10

    2025

  21. [22]

    Non-fungible tokens, tok- enization, and ownership,

    J. Kaisto, T. Juutilainen, and J. Kauranen, “Non-fungible tokens, tok- enization, and ownership,”Computer Law & Security Review, vol. 54, p. 105996, 2024

    2024

  22. [23]

    Crypto- marketing: How non-fungible tokens (nfts) challenge traditional mar- keting,

    R. Hofstetter, E. De Bellis, L. Brandes, M. Clegg, C. Lamberton, D. Reibstein, F. Rohlfsen, B. Schmitt, and J. Z. Zhang, “Crypto- marketing: How non-fungible tokens (nfts) challenge traditional mar- keting,”Marketing Letters, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 705–711, 2022

    2022

  23. [24]

    Non-fungible tokens (nfts)—survey of current appli- cations, evolution, and future directions,

    Q. Razi, A. Devrani, H. Abhyankar, G. S. S. Chalapathi, V . Hassija, and M. Guizani, “Non-fungible tokens (nfts)—survey of current appli- cations, evolution, and future directions,”IEEE Open Journal of the Communications Society, vol. 5, pp. 2765–2791, 2024

    2024

  24. [25]

    On the role of provenance in nft trades,

    S. Alavi, E. Haruvy, and Y . Xie, “On the role of provenance in nft trades,”International Journal of Research in Marketing, vol. 42, no. 3, Part A, pp. 610–625, 2025

    2025

  25. [26]

    Hidden risks: The centralization of nft metadata and what it means for the market,

    H. Salem, H. Salloum, M. Mazzara, N. Askarbekuly, L. Johard, and G. Succi, “Hidden risks: The centralization of nft metadata and what it means for the market,” inAdvanced Information Networking and Applications(L. Barolli, ed.), (Cham), pp. 154–162, Springer Nature Switzerland, 2025

    2025

  26. [27]

    Degods ditch polygon, moving y00ts to ethereum and returning $3 million grant,

    A. Hayward, “Degods ditch polygon, moving y00ts to ethereum and returning $3 million grant,” Aug. 2023. Accessed on: 2025-08-10

    2023

  27. [28]

    Blockchain cross-chain bridge security: Challenges, solutions, and future outlook,

    N. Li, M. Qi, Z. Xu, X. Zhu, W. Zhou, S. Wen, and Y . Xiang, “Blockchain cross-chain bridge security: Challenges, solutions, and future outlook,”Distrib. Ledger Technol., vol. 4, Feb. 2025

    2025

  28. [29]

    Security analysis of smart contract migration from ethereum to arbitrum,

    X. Tang and L. Shi, “Security analysis of smart contract migration from ethereum to arbitrum,”Blockchains, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 424–444, 2024

    2024

  29. [30]

    An in-depth guide to cross-chain protocols under a multi-chain world,

    J. Zheng, D. K. C. Lee, and D. Qian, “An in-depth guide to cross-chain protocols under a multi-chain world,”World Scientific Annual Review of Fintech, vol. 1, p. 2350003, 2023

    2023

  30. [31]

    Decentralized cross-blockchain asset transfers,

    M. Sigwart, P. Frauenthaler, C. Spanring, M. Sober, and S. Schulte, “Decentralized cross-blockchain asset transfers,” in2021 Third Interna- tional Conference on Blockchain Computing and Applications (BCCA), pp. 34–41, 2021

    2021

  31. [32]

    Decentralized cross-blockchain asset transfers with transfer confirmation,

    M. Sober, M. Sigwart, P. Frauenthaler, C. Spanring, M. Kobelt, and S. Schulte, “Decentralized cross-blockchain asset transfers with transfer confirmation,”Cluster computing, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 2129–2146, 2023

    2023

  32. [33]

    Bridging sapling: Private cross- chain transfers,

    A. Sanchez, A. Stewart, and F. Shirazi, “Bridging sapling: Private cross- chain transfers,” in2022 IEEE Crosschain Workshop (ICBC-CROSS), pp. 1–9, 2022

    2022

  33. [34]

    Analyzing the perfor- mance of the inter-blockchain communication protocol,

    J. O. Chervinski, D. Kreutz, X. Xu, and J. Yu, “Analyzing the perfor- mance of the inter-blockchain communication protocol,” in2023 53rd Annual IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN), pp. 151–164, 2023

    2023

  34. [35]

    A network of distributed ledgers,

    J. Kwon and E. Buchman, “A network of distributed ledgers,”Cosmos, dated, pp. 1–41, 2018. Accessed on: 2025-08-10

    2018

  35. [36]

    Wormhole cross- chain bridge transactions flow: An exploratory study,

    B. Pillai, J. S. Tharani, and V . Muthukkumarasamy, “Wormhole cross- chain bridge transactions flow: An exploratory study,” in2025 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC), pp. 1–2, 2025

    2025

  36. [37]

    Bridging blockchains: The rise of cross-chain proto- cols and interoperable ecosystems

    A. Lawrence, “Bridging blockchains: The rise of cross-chain proto- cols and interoperable ecosystems.” https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/ bp7gx\ v1.html, Jan 2025

    2025

  37. [38]

    Secure asset transfer protocol (satp)

    Internet Engineering Task Force, “Secure asset transfer protocol (satp).” https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/satp/about/. Accessed: 2026-04-14

    2026

  38. [39]

    Hyperledger Cacti

    Linux Foundation Decentralized Trust, “Hyperledger Cacti.” https:// www.lfdecentralizedtrust.org/projects/cacti. Accessed: 2026-04-14

    2026

  39. [40]

    Etherql: A query layer for blockchain system,

    Y . Li, K. Zheng, Y . Yan, Q. Liu, and X. Zhou, “Etherql: A query layer for blockchain system,” inDatabase Systems for Advanced Applications (S. Candan, L. Chen, T. B. Pedersen, L. Chang, and W. Hua, eds.), (Cham), pp. 556–567, Springer International Publishing, 2017

    2017

  40. [41]

    A survey of blockchain: Techniques, applications, and challenges,

    W. Gao, W. G. Hatcher, and W. Yu, “A survey of blockchain: Techniques, applications, and challenges,” in2018 27th International Conference on Computer Communication and Networks (ICCCN), pp. 1–11, 2018

    2018

  41. [42]

    A survey on blockchain technology: Evolution, architecture and security,

    M. N. M. Bhutta, A. A. Khwaja, A. Nadeem, H. F. Ahmad, M. K. Khan, M. A. Hanif, H. Song, M. Alshamari, and Y . Cao, “A survey on blockchain technology: Evolution, architecture and security,”IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 61048–61073, 2021

    2021

  42. [43]

    Understanding blockchain: Definitions, architecture, design, and system comparison,

    M. H. Tabatabaei, R. Vitenberg, and N. R. Veeraragavan, “Understanding blockchain: Definitions, architecture, design, and system comparison,” Computer Science Review, vol. 50, p. 100575, 2023

    2023

  43. [44]

    The security reference architecture for blockchains: Toward a standardized model for studying vulnerabilities, threats, and defenses,

    I. Homoliak, S. Venugopalan, D. Reijsbergen, Q. Hum, R. Schumi, and P. Szalachowski, “The security reference architecture for blockchains: Toward a standardized model for studying vulnerabilities, threats, and defenses,”IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 341–390, 2021

    2021

  44. [45]

    Analyzing erc-1155 adoption: A study of the multi-token ecosystem,

    M. Loporchio, D. Di Francesco Maesa, A. Bernasconi, and L. Ricci, “Analyzing erc-1155 adoption: A study of the multi-token ecosystem,” in Complex Networks & Their Applications XIII(H. Cherifi, M. Donduran, L. M. Rocha, C. Cherifi, and O. Varol, eds.), (Cham), pp. 385–397, Springer Nature Switzerland, 2025

    2025

  45. [46]

    Architecture paradigms and their influences and impacts on component-based software systems,

    G. Wang and C. Fung, “Architecture paradigms and their influences and impacts on component-based software systems,” in37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the, pp. 10 pp.–, 2004

    2004

  46. [47]

    A case study in locating the architectural roots of technical debt,

    R. Kazman, Y . Cai, R. Mo, Q. Feng, L. Xiao, S. Haziyev, V . Fedak, and A. Shapochka, “A case study in locating the architectural roots of technical debt,” in2015 IEEE/ACM 37th IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering, vol. 2, pp. 179–188, 2015

    2015

  47. [48]

    X. Xu, I. Weber, and M. Staples,Architecture for Blockchain Applica- tions. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated, 1st ed., 2019

    2019

  48. [49]

    Smart contract classifica- tion based on neural clustering and semantic feature enhancement,

    G. Tian, P. Wang, R. Wang, and Y . Du, “Smart contract classifica- tion based on neural clustering and semantic feature enhancement,” Blockchain: Research and Applications, vol. 6, no. 4, p. 100303, 2025

    2025

  49. [50]

    EIP-2981: Nft royalty stan- dard

    Ethereum Improvement Proposal Authors, “EIP-2981: Nft royalty stan- dard.” https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-2981, 2025. Accessed on 2025-10-20

    2025