Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Liquefaction: Privately Liquefying Blockchain Assets

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Liquefaction shows that a blockchain address's private keys can be rented, shared, or pooled inside a trusted execution environment, privately breaking the assumption that one address equals one owner.

desk verdict Solid systems paper that makes the SEAO break concrete with working code, but the pre-signing defense leaves a real gap that weakens the asset-time segmentation guarantee. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02634 v1 pith:KH3GBFZR submitted 2024-12-03 cs.CR

James Austgen , Andrés Fábrega , Mahimna Kelkar , Dani Vilardell , Sarah Allen , Kushal Babel , Jay Yu , Ari Juels This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CR
keywords trustedexecutionenvironmentskeyencumbrancecryptocurrencywalletsSingle-EntityAddress-OwnershipDarkDAOssoulboundtokenscompleteknowledgeblockchainprivacy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper introduces Liquefaction, a wallet platform that places a user's private signing key inside a trusted execution environment and lets a programmatic policy decide when signatures are produced. Its claim is that this 'key encumbrance' breaks the standard assumption that one blockchain address is controlled by one entity, because the same key can be rented, shared, or pooled among many parties with no direct on-chain trace. A sympathetic reader should care because many applications—locked tokens, airdrops, loyalty points, soulbound tokens, DAO voting, and quadratic voting—assume address ownership is a stable identity signal. Liquefaction shows those assumptions can be undermined privately, and it also identifies beneficial uses and a countermeasure. If true, it shifts the burden onto any application that needs to prove a key is unencumbered.

What carries the argument

The central object is an encumbered key: a secret signing key generated and held only inside a TEE-backed wallet contract, so the human 'owner' never has direct access. Around it, the wallet manager offers four operations (create wallet, sign, update policy, verify access), and policies obey asset-time segmentation: every asset is exclusively controlled by one player until a deadline, fungible balances are split into sub-balances, and newly signed transactions must use the current nonce so a departing player cannot pre-sign a spend after access expires. Sub-policies form a delegation tree; each signature request is checked recursively from the leaf up to the root. This machinery converts a raw key into a rentable, shareable credential without leaving on-chain evidence of the sharing.

What would settle it

Extract the encumbered private key from the TEE during a rental period and sign a transaction the policy should have blocked; if the target blockchain accepts the signature, the claim that Liquefaction privately enforces ownership policies collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Liquefaction is a wallet that demonstrates, by construction, that the Single-Entity Address-Ownership assumption is fragile. Instead of handing a private key to one user, it places the key in a trusted execution environment and attaches an access-control policy to it. The policy can rent out signing rights for a time window, partition fungible balances among sub-policies, and refuse to revoke already-granted access, while the policy itself is kept private from other players. Because the wallet can sign arbitrary Ethereum-style transactions, the same encumbered address can vote in DAOs, hold locked tokens, prove ownership of a soulbound token, or receive airdrops while the benefits are being consumed by someone else, and an on-chain observer cannot tell the address is shared.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the TEE underlying the wallet is genuinely confidential, correct, and live, with side-channel attacks and deployment mistakes assumed away.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A holder of vesting or locked tokens can sell effective control before the lockup expires without moving the tokens on-chain.
  • A DAO voter can privately delegate or sell a vote while the wallet's policy prevents the owner from overriding it.
  • Soulbound tokens, airdrop eligibility, loyalty rewards, and token-gated ticketing lose their one-account, one-owner guarantee.
  • Wash trading and fake-theft fraud become harder to detect because rented addresses can look unconnected.
  • Applications that want to preserve SEAO-based security can require complete-knowledge proofs that a key is not encumbered.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: If TEE-based key encumbrance becomes common, on-chain analytics and compliance tools that map addresses to individuals will need to treat address histories as potentially shared or rented, not as reliable identity signals.
  • Inference: The same mechanism that enables privacy-preserving DAOs and dusting-attack mitigation could erode the evidentiary value of on-chain provenance, challenging proofs of reserves and provenance-based claims.
  • Inference: The practical timeline depends on whether attested execution can resist side channels: hardened mainstream TEEs would make Liquefaction-style wallets cheap and ubiquitous, while persistent TEE breakability would keep the threat mostly theoretical.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents Liquefaction, a TEE-based wallet platform that 'encumbers' private keys so that signing rights over a single blockchain address can be rented, shared, or pooled among multiple users under programmable access-control policies. The authors argue that this breaks the Single-Entity Address-Ownership (SEAO) assumption underpinning many blockchain applications, with consequences for voting, soulbound tokens, airdrops, loyalty points, and transaction-history analytics. The paper introduces a formal access-control model (asset-time segmentation) in Section 3, describes a prototype implemented on Oasis Sapphire in Section 4, reports measured gas and latency costs, discusses a liveness fallback system and the Complete Knowledge countermeasure, and enumerates several adversarial and beneficial applications, including two Dark DAO variants. The central claim is that Liquefaction demonstrates a practical, private way to liquefy blockchain assets that were previously considered illiquid.

Significance. If the safety properties claimed for the policy model hold, this is a significant systems-and-security contribution. The paper ships an open-source implementation, reports concrete performance numbers (Figures 7 and 8), and provides working demonstrations such as the Dark DAO and soulbound-token encumbrance, which make the SEAO threat concrete rather than theoretical. The formal model in Section 3 is a useful starting point for reasoning about key-encumbrance policies, and the privacy definition in Section 3.3 is clearly stated. The paper also explicitly acknowledges its TEE trust assumptions in Section 4.4, which is honest and appropriate for a demonstration of feasibility. However, the implementation does not fully realize the formal model's pre-signing protections, and this gap directly affects the paper's core safety claim, as detailed in the major comments.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.3, 'Pre-signing' paragraph] The pre-signing defense is incomplete and does not enforce asset-time segmentation. The paper states that requiring all signed transactions to use the current account nonce 'prevents sub-policies from sending more than one transaction after their access expires, fulfilling goal (4) to the maximum extent possible.' This explicitly concedes that one post-expiry transaction remains possible, but the paper's safety claim requires that no assets be spendable after reassignment. Concretely, a sub-policy P can obtain an off-chain signature transferring its full sub-balance to an address P controls, let its sub-policy expire, have the access manager assign the same destination/sub-balance to Q, and then broadcast the old transaction. Because no transaction has been included in the meantime, the account nonce is unchanged, the old transaction is valid on Ethereum, Q's later transaction with the same nonce fails, and the funds leave the encumbered address. This violates the 'key guiding principle' of Section 3.2 and the claim in Section 4.1 that asset-time segmentation is enforced globally by beta. The nonce rule only bounds the number of post-expiry transactions; it does not prevent the spend itself.
  2. [Sections 3.2 and 4.3] The formal model's pre-signing protection does not carry over to the implementation. In Figure 1, LWSign records (P,m,ost) in intst, which permits beta to 'seal' assets with outstanding signatures, and Section 3.2 says policy updates are allowed only for unsealed assets. However, Section 4.3 explicitly aims to let sub-policies sign transactions off-chain 'without requiring changes to the TEE blockchain's state,' so the wallet contract has no record of outstanding off-chain signatures and cannot seal the corresponding assets. The transaction-attribution mechanism described later in Section 4.3 only decides which sub-policy's balance to debit after a transaction is included; it does not prevent the asset-time violation. This gap between the ideal functionality and the implementation is load-bearing. The authors should either require all spend-capable signing requests to be committed to the TEE blockchain (so that outstanding signatures are visible to the policy) or maintain an explicit sealing invariant in the policy contract; otherwise the safety claims for renting, sharing, and pooling must be weakened.
  3. [Section 4.1, 'Policy transitions'] The statement that 'a Liquefaction wallet (including AM) cannot remove or reduce access already conferred' is not supported by the implementation. In the pre-signing attack, the AM grants access to Q after P's sub-policy expires, but P's earlier off-chain signature still allows P to spend the same funds. Thus Q's access is effectively reduced by P's action even though the AM did not explicitly revoke it. A formal invariant stating what 'access' means with respect to off-chain signatures, and a proof or implementation mechanism that preserves this invariant under all interleavings of LWSign, sub-policy creation, and expiration, would be needed to substantiate this claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.2] Typo: 'applications can prevent mitigate against Liquefaction' should read 'prevent or mitigate against Liquefaction.'
  2. [Section 4.3] Typo: 'in addtion' should be 'in addition.'
  3. [Section 6.2] Typo: 'non-transferablilty' should be 'non-transferability.'
  4. [Figure 10] Several entries have stray spacing, e.g., 'V otes,' 'V oters,' and 'T oken-Gated'; these should be cleaned up.
  5. [Section 4.4] The idealized TEE assumption is stated clearly, but given the history of TEE side-channel attacks cited in [31], [59], [79], the paper should state more explicitly that the central safety claims hold only under this idealization, and that a TEE compromise would invalidate both confidentiality and policy enforcement. This would help readers calibrate the strength of the demonstration.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Liquefaction's central claims are backed by an independent implementation and measurements, and the only author-overlapping citation (Complete Knowledge) is used as an external countermeasure rather than as an input to the derivation.

full rationale

I walked the paper's derivation chain. The central claim is that TEE-based key encumbrance can break the Single-Entity Address-Ownership assumption by attaching rich, multi-user policies to private keys. This is supported by a concrete wallet implementation on Oasis Sapphire, a formal access-control model in Section 3, and measured costs and latencies in Section 4 (Figures 7 and 8), rather than by reusing the paper's own conclusions as premises. The policy model is definitional in the ordinary sense: asset-time segmentation and sub-policies are introduced as design choices, and the implementation is checked against those definitions; no quantity is fitted to a target result and then relabeled as a prediction. The only author-overlapping citation that plays a substantive role is Complete Knowledge [41], cited as a defensive countermeasure and as prior formal work. That citation is not used to derive Liquefaction's encumbrance properties; it is invoked as an external, peer-reviewed result for a separate mitigation, and even if it were weaker, Liquefaction's core feasibility and ecosystem-impact claims would stand independently. The paper also explicitly scopes out TEE side-channel and platform-deployment failures in Section 4.4; that is an assumption about the threat model, not a circular reduction of the claimed result to itself. The pre-signing gap identified in Section 4.3 is a potential security flaw in the implementation's handling of off-chain signatures, but it is a correctness concern, not a circularity concern: the policy's intended behavior is not defined in terms of the very security property it is supposed to deliver. Overall, I found no step where a claimed prediction or first-principles result is equivalent by construction to a fitted input or to a self-citation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 4 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard cryptographic assumptions and TEE trust assumptions, which are explicitly stated. No free parameters are fitted to data in the scientific sense; system parameters like the fallback timeout T are design choices, not fitted values. The introduced entities are mostly software systems with attached code, not unvalidated physical postulates.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption TEEs provide correct execution and confidentiality (idealized Oasis Sapphire model)
    Section 4.4 assumes integrity and liveness of the TEE blockchain and treats side-channel issues out of scope. All policy enforcement and key secrecy depend on this.
  • domain assumption Liveness and correct execution of the fallback committee and decentralized storage
    Appendix B requires at least t-of-n fallback TEE nodes and one-of-m storage repositories to be available and correct when triggered. This is needed for key recovery under the fallback policy.
  • standard math Signature scheme Sigma is existentially unforgeable under chosen-message attacks
    The wallet functionality in Figure 1 relies on standard signature security for LWSign and LWVerify to be meaningful.
  • domain assumption Ethereum blockchain provides a trustworthy source of block hashes and finality
    Section 4.3 assumes a trusted oracle of Ethereum block hashes for inclusion proofs, and the fallback trigger uses Ethereum for liveness.
  • domain assumption EVM account nonces are reliably enforced and inclusion proofs are sound
    The pre-signing defense in Section 4.3 depends on current account nonces and Merkle inclusion proofs to prevent old-signature replay.
invented entities (4)
  • Liquefaction wallet (encumbered-key wallet contract) independent evidence
    purpose: Stores private key in TEE and enforces access-control policies for signing
    Shipped as open-source Solidity contracts on Oasis Sapphire; repository cited, though no commit hash is provided.
  • Asset-time segmentation policy model independent evidence
    purpose: Ensures a given asset is controlled by exactly one player at a time, enabling safe delegation
    Fully specified in Section 3.2 and implemented via sub-policies; behavior is testable in the deployed contracts.
  • Dark DAO and Dark DAO Lite (DD tokens) independent evidence
    purpose: Private vote-buying marketplaces; DD tokens separate voting rights from token value
    Dark DAO implemented in the repository; DD token mechanism is described and stated as implemented in Section 6.1.
  • Sentinel wallet and fallback committee
    purpose: Liveness fallback to recover keys if the primary TEE blockchain fails
    Designed in Section 5.1 and Appendix B but no implementation or experimental validation is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Liquefaction: Privately Liquefying Blockchain Assets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KH3GBFZR

@misc{pith2026241202634,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Liquefaction: Privately Liquefying Blockchain Assets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KH3GBFZR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02634}
}
read the original abstract

Inherent in the world of cryptocurrency systems and their security models is the notion that private keys, and thus assets, are controlled by individuals or individual entities. We present Liquefaction, a wallet platform that demonstrates the dangerous fragility of this foundational assumption by systemically breaking it. Liquefaction uses trusted execution environments (TEEs) to encumber private keys, i.e., attach rich, multi-user policies to their use. In this way, it enables the cryptocurrency credentials and assets of a single end-user address to be freely rented, shared, or pooled. It accomplishes these things privately, with no direct on-chain traces. Liquefaction demonstrates the sweeping consequences of TEE-based key encumbrance for the cryptocurrency landscape. Liquefaction can undermine the security and economic models of many applications and resources, such as locked tokens, DAO voting, airdrops, loyalty points, soulbound tokens, and quadratic voting. It can do so with no on-chain and minimal off-chain visibility. Conversely, we also discuss beneficial applications of Liquefaction, such as privacy-preserving, cost-efficient DAOs and a countermeasure to dusting attacks. Importantly, we describe an existing TEE-based tool that applications can use as a countermeasure to Liquefaction. Our work prompts a wholesale rethinking of existing models and enforcement of key and asset ownership in the cryptocurrency ecosystem.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02634 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Liquefaction Wallet Management Functionality [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example showing how new sub-policies are spawned. The Typed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Example showing how sub-policies lose access to signatures no [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Liquefaction Wallet contract call flow for a Dark DAO policy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Typical usage of the Ethereum transaction policy: a sub-policy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Average end-to-end transaction inclusion and inclusion proof [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Costs of using the transaction encumbrance policy, assuming that [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The fallback system is triggered in the rare case that the TEE [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Table of example applications Liquefaction enables or impacts. Rows marked in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Incentivized Symbiosis: A Paradigm for Human-Agent Coevolution

    cs.MA 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The paper introduces 'Incentivized Symbiosis,' a Web3-inspired framework for using tokenized incentives and blockchain-recorded rules to promote cooperation between humans and AI agents.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    The 1inch Foundation will distribute 10 mln 1INCH to the defi community as gas cost refunds

    1inch Network. The 1inch Foundation will distribute 10 mln 1INCH to the defi community as gas cost refunds. https://blog.1inch.io/th e-1inch-foundation-will-distribute-10-mln-1inch-to-the-defi-commu nity-as-gas-cost-refunds/, 27 Jul. 2021

    2021

  2. [2]

    Loyalty points on the blockchain

    Dhwani Agrawal, Natalia Natalia, Gajane Gopalakrishnan, Mar- garet Natalie Guzman, Michael D McDonald, and Henry M Kim. Loyalty points on the blockchain. Business and Management Studies, 2018

    2018

  3. [3]

    NFTs for art and collectables: Primer and outlook, 2022

    Sarah Allen, Ari Juels, Mukti Khaire, Tyler Kell, and Siddhant Shrivastava. NFTs for art and collectables: Primer and outlook, 2022

    2022

  4. [4]

    Trustzone: Integrated hardware and software security

    Tiago Alves. Trustzone: Integrated hardware and software security. ARM White Paper. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:584639 02, 2004

    2004

  5. [5]

    What is NFT wash trading? https://www.coin desk.com/learn/what-is-nft-wash-trading, 9 Apr

    Andrey Sergeenkov. What is NFT wash trading? https://www.coin desk.com/learn/what-is-nft-wash-trading, 9 Apr. 2024. Accessed: 2024-10-23

    2024

  6. [6]

    Block building inside SGX

    Gogul Baliga, Alex Obadia, Arjun Bulusu, and Bernardo Magnani. Block building inside SGX. https://writings.flashbots.net/block-build ing-inside-sgx, 2023. Accessed: 2024-10-06

    2023

  7. [7]

    An empirical analysis of smart contracts: platforms, applications, and design patterns

    Massimo Bartoletti and Livio Pompianu. An empirical analysis of smart contracts: platforms, applications, and design patterns. In Financial Cryptography and Data Security , 2017

    2017

  8. [8]

    Token lockup, 2024

    Binance Academy. Token lockup, 2024. Accessed: 2024-10-31

    2024

Show all 90 references
  1. [9]

    EIP-712: Typed structured data hashing and signing

    Remco Bloemen, Leonid Logvinov, and Jacob Evans. EIP-712: Typed structured data hashing and signing. Ethereum Improvement Proposals, September 2017. https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-712

    2017

  2. [10]

    Blockchain and trusted computing: Problems, pitfalls, and a solution for hyperledger fabric

    Marcus Brandenburger, Christian Cachin, R ¨udiger Kapitza, and Alessandro Sorniotti. Blockchain and trusted computing: Problems, pitfalls, and a solution for hyperledger fabric. CoRR, abs/1805.08541, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  3. [11]

    V . Buterin. Minimal anti-collusion infrastructure (MACI). Ethereum Research blog post, https://ethresear.ch/t/minimal-anti-collusion-inf rastructure/5413, 2 May 2019

    2019

  4. [12]

    Ethereum: A next-generation smart contract and decentralized application platform

    Vitalik Buterin. Ethereum: A next-generation smart contract and decentralized application platform. Ethereum whitepaper, https: //ethereum.org/en/whitepaper/, 2014. Accessed: 2024-10-16

    2014

  5. [13]

    Eip-1559: Fee market change for eth 1.0 chain

    Vitalik Buterin, Eric Conner, Rick Dudley, Matthew Slipper, Ian Norden, and Abdelhamid Bakhta. Eip-1559: Fee market change for eth 1.0 chain. Ethereum Improvement Proposals, April 2019. https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-1559

    2019

  6. [14]

    Blockchain privacy and regulatory compliance: Towards a practical equilibrium

    Vitalik Buterin, Jacob Illum, Matthias Nadler, Fabian Sch ¨ar, and Ameen Soleimani. Blockchain privacy and regulatory compliance: Towards a practical equilibrium. Blockchain: Research and Applica- tions, 5(1):100176, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    A crowd-funded group lost an auction for a first edition of the U.S

    Bill Chappell. A crowd-funded group lost an auction for a first edition of the U.S. constitution. NPR, 19 Nov. 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Sgxpectre: Stealing intel secrets from SGX enclaves via speculative execution

    Guoxing Chen, Sanchuan Chen, Yuan Xiao, Yinqian Zhang, Zhiqiang Lin, and Ten H Lai. Sgxpectre: Stealing intel secrets from SGX enclaves via speculative execution. In IEEE EuroS&P, 2019

    2019

  9. [17]

    Civitas: Toward a secure voting system

    Michael R Clarkson, Stephen Chong, and Andrew C Myers. Civitas: Toward a secure voting system. In IEEE S&P, 2008

    2008

  10. [18]

    What is a crypto airdrop? https://www.coinbase.com/lea rn/crypto-basics/what-is-a-crypto-airdrop

    Coinbase. What is a crypto airdrop? https://www.coinbase.com/lea rn/crypto-basics/what-is-a-crypto-airdrop. Accessed: 2024-11-14

    2024

  11. [19]

    What is a crypto dusting attack and how to avoid it

    Coinbase. What is a crypto dusting attack and how to avoid it. https: //www.coinbase.com/learn/tips-and-tutorials/what-is-crypto-dusting -attack-and-how-to-avoid-it. Accessed: 2024-10-24

    2024

  12. [20]

    Token Lockup

    CoinMarketCap. Token Lockup. https://coinmarketcap.com/academ y/glossary/token-lockup. Accessed: 2024-11-13

    2024

  13. [21]

    Decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs)

    Ethereum.org Contributors. Decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs). https://ethereum.org/en/dao/. Accessed: 2024-11-13

    2024

  14. [22]

    Intel SGX explained

    Victor Costan and Srinivas Devadas. Intel SGX explained. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Paper 2016/086, 2016

    2016

  15. [23]

    On-chain vote buying and the rise of dark DAOs

    Philip Daian, Tyler Kell, Ian Miers, and Ari Juels. On-chain vote buying and the rise of dark DAOs. Hacking Distributed blog post, ht tps://hackingdistributed.com/2018/07/02/on-chain-vote-buying/, 2018

    2018

  16. [24]

    Coercion- resistance and receipt-freeness in electronic voting

    St ´ephanie Delaune, Steve Kremer, and Mark Ryan. Coercion- resistance and receipt-freeness in electronic voting. In 19th IEEE Computer Security Foundations Workshop (CSFW’06) , 2006

    2006

  17. [25]

    v3 updated fee schedule

    dYdX. v3 updated fee schedule. https://dydx.exchange/blog/v3-upd ated-fee-schedule, 22 Sept. 2023. 14

    2023

  18. [26]

    Individual cryptography

    Stefan Dziembowski, Sebastian Faust, and Tomasz Lizurej. Individual cryptography. In CRYPTO, pages 547–579, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Eigenlayer: The restaking collective

    Team EigenLayer. Eigenlayer: The restaking collective. https://docs .eigenlayer.xyz/overview/whitepaper, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    DeFi bribes: The battle for liquidity supremacy

    Victor Eluke. DeFi bribes: The battle for liquidity supremacy. Blocverse Blog, 25 Sept. 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Eip-7212: Precompiled for secp256r1 curve support [draft]

    Ulas ¸ Erdo ˘gan and Do ˘gan Alpaslan. Eip-7212: Precompiled for secp256r1 curve support [draft]. https://eip.info/eip/7212, 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Light clients

    Ethereum Foundation. Light clients. https://ethereum.org/en/develo pers/docs/nodes-and-clients/light-clients/, August 2024. Accessed: 2024-10-10

    2024

  23. [31]

    Security vulnerabilities of SGX and countermeasures: A survey

    Shufan Fei, Zheng Yan, Wenxiu Ding, and Haomeng Xie. Security vulnerabilities of SGX and countermeasures: A survey. ACM Comput. Surv., 54(6), July 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    Buterin G

    V . Buterin G. Weyl, P. Ohlhaver. Decentralized society: finding web3’s soul. SSRN, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?ab stract id=4105763, 11 May 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Sok: Liquid staking tokens (LSTs)

    Krzysztof Gogol, Yaron Velner, Benjamin Kraner, and Claudio Tessone. Sok: Liquid staking tokens (LSTs). arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.00644, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Introducing onebalance

    Stephane Gosselin and Ankit Chiplunkar. Introducing onebalance. Frontier Research blog post, https://frontier.tech/onebalance, 2024. Accessed: 2024-10-23

    2024

  27. [35]

    Circumventing cryptographic deniability with remote attestation

    Lachlan Gunn, Ricardo Vieitez Parra, and N Asokan. Circumventing cryptographic deniability with remote attestation. In Privacy Enhanc- ing Technologies Symposium, 2019

    2019

  28. [36]

    Understanding an Ethereum Transac- tion

    Etherscan Information Center. Understanding an Ethereum Transac- tion. https://info.etherscan.com/understanding-an-ethereum-transacti on/. Accessed: 2024-11-13

    2024

  29. [37]

    A public-key cryptosystem suitable for digital multisignature

    Kazuharu Itakura. A public-key cryptosystem suitable for digital multisignature. NEC research and development , 71:1–8, 1983

    1983

  30. [38]

    SGXonerated: Finding (and partially fixing) privacy flaws in TEE-based smart contract platforms without breaking the tee

    Nerla Jean-Louis, Yunqi Li, Yan Ji, Harjasleen Malvai, Thomas Yurek, Sylvain Bellemare, and Andrew Miller. SGXonerated: Finding (and partially fixing) privacy flaws in TEE-based smart contract platforms without breaking the tee. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Paper 2023/378, 2023....

    2023

  31. [39]

    Coercion-resistant electronic elections

    Ari Juels, Dario Catalano, and Markus Jakobsson. Coercion-resistant electronic elections. In WPES, pages 61–70, 2005

    2005

  32. [40]

    The ring of Gyges: Investigating the future of criminal smart contracts

    Ari Juels, Ahmed Kosba, and Elaine Shi. The ring of Gyges: Investigating the future of criminal smart contracts. In ACM CCS , 2016

    2016

  33. [41]

    Complete knowledge: Preventing encumbrance of cryptographic secrets

    Mahimna Kelkar, Kushal Babel, Philip Daian, James Austgen, Vitalik Buterin, and Ari Juels. Complete knowledge: Preventing encumbrance of cryptographic secrets. In ACM CCS, 2024

    2024

  34. [42]

    The sting framework: Proving the existence of superclass adversaries

    Mahimna Kelkar, Yunqi Li, Nerla Jean-Louis, Carolina Ortega P ´erez, Kushal Babel, Andrew Miller, and Ari Juels. The sting framework: Proving the existence of superclass adversaries. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Paper 2024/1676, 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    Blacklist vs

    DaeYoub Kim and Jihoon Lee. Blacklist vs. whitelist-based ran- somware solutions. IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine , 9(3):22– 28, 2020

    2020

  36. [44]

    Arbitrum FAQ

    Offchain Labs. Arbitrum FAQ. https://docs.arbitrum.io/learn-more/ faq. Accessed: 2024-10-10

    2024

  37. [45]

    Apes come home

    Yuga Labs. Apes come home. https://news.yuga.com/apes-come-h ome, Feb 2024

    2024

  38. [46]

    ApeFest FAQ

    Yuga Labs. ApeFest FAQ. Yuga Labs News, https://apefest.com/faq, 21 Feb. 2024

    2024

  39. [47]

    Quadratic voting: How mechanism design can radicalize democracy

    Steven P Lalley and E Glen Weyl. Quadratic voting: How mechanism design can radicalize democracy. In AEA Papers and Proceedings , 2018

    2018

  40. [48]

    Keystone: an open framework for architecting trusted execution environments

    Dayeol Lee, David Kohlbrenner, Shweta Shinde, Krste Asanovi ´c, and Dawn Song. Keystone: an open framework for architecting trusted execution environments. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth European Conference on Computer Systems, EuroSys ’20, New York, NY , USA,

  41. [49]

    An offline delegatable cryptocurrency system

    Rujia Li, Qin Wang, Xinrui Zhang, Qi Wang, David Galindo, and Yang Xiang. An offline delegatable cryptocurrency system. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC), pages 1–9. IEEE, 2021

    2021

  42. [50]

    Teechain: a secure payment network with asynchronous blockchain access

    Joshua Lind, Oded Naor, Ittay Eyal, Florian Kelbert, Emin G ¨un Sirer, and Peter Pietzuch. Teechain: a secure payment network with asynchronous blockchain access. In SOSP, pages 63–79, 2019

    2019

  43. [51]

    Emergent out- comes of the vetoken model

    Thomas Lloyd, Daire O’Broin, and Martin Harrigan. Emergent out- comes of the vetoken model. In 2023 IEEE international conference on omni-layer intelligent systems (COINS) , pages 1–6. IEEE, 2023

    2023

  44. [52]

    V oteAgain: A scalable coercion-resistant voting system

    Wouter Lueks, I ˜nigo Querejeta-Azurmendi, and Carmela Troncoso. V oteAgain: A scalable coercion-resistant voting system. In USENIX Security, pages 1553–1570, 2020

    2020

  45. [53]

    Delegatee: Brokered delegation using trusted exe- cution environments

    Sinisa Matetic, Moritz Schneider, Andrew Miller, Ari Juels, and Srdjan Capkun. Delegatee: Brokered delegation using trusted exe- cution environments. In 27th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security), pages 1387–1403, 2018

    2018

  46. [54]

    On tamper-resistance from a theoretical viewpoint

    Paulo Mateus and Serge Vaudenay. On tamper-resistance from a theoretical viewpoint. In CHES, pages 411–428, 2009

    2009

  47. [55]

    On tamper-resistance from a theoretical viewpoint

    Paulo Mateus and Serge Vaudenay. On tamper-resistance from a theoretical viewpoint. In Christophe Clavier and Kris Gaj, editors, Cryptographic Hardware and Embedded Systems - CHES 2009, pages 411–428, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009. Springer Berlin Heidelberg

    2009

  48. [56]

    Intel® software guard extensions (Intel® SGX) support for dynamic memory man- agement inside an enclave

    Frank McKeen, Ilya Alexandrovich, Ittai Anati, Dror Caspi, Simon Johnson, Rebekah Leslie-Hurd, and Carlos Rozas. Intel® software guard extensions (Intel® SGX) support for dynamic memory man- agement inside an enclave. In HASP, pages 1–9, 2016

    2016

  49. [57]

    In- novative instructions and software model for isolated execution

    Frank McKeen, Ilya Alexandrovich, Alex Berenzon, Carlos V Rozas, Hisham Shafi, Vedvyas Shanbhogue, and Uday R Savagaonkar. In- novative instructions and software model for isolated execution. In HASP, page 10, 2013

    2013

  50. [58]

    Towards risk scoring of bitcoin transactions

    Malte M ¨oser, Rainer B ¨ohme, and Dominic Breuker. Towards risk scoring of bitcoin transactions. In Financial Cryptography and Data Security, 2014

    2014

  51. [59]

    A survey on the (in)security of trusted execution environments

    Antonio Mu ˜noz, Ruben R ´ıos, Rodrigo Rom ´an, and Javier L ´opez. A survey on the (in)security of trusted execution environments. Com- puters & Security , 129:103180, 2023

    2023

  52. [60]

    Block finalization stall incident report for Avalanche

    Avalanche Network. Block finalization stall incident report for Avalanche. https://status.avax.network/incidents/qmx0s7zk6gkm,

  53. [61]

    mb-020624 incident report for Solana

    Solana Network. mb-020624 incident report for Solana. https://stat us.solana.com/incidents/n5kcgs8dl9pj, 2024. Accessed: 2024-10-12

    2024

  54. [62]

    Ethereum mainnet was unable to fully finalize transactions for 25 minutes

    Margaux Nijkerk. Ethereum mainnet was unable to fully finalize transactions for 25 minutes. CoinDesk, 11 May 2023. Accessed: 2024-10-10

    2023

  55. [63]

    Nvidia confidential computing solutions

    NVIDIA. Nvidia confidential computing solutions. https://www.nv idia.com/en-us/data-center/solutions/confidential-computing/, 2024. Accessed: 2024-10-06

    2024

  56. [64]

    Oasis protocol: Privacy-enabled blockchain platform

    Oasis Labs. Oasis protocol: Privacy-enabled blockchain platform. https://oasisprotocol.org/, 2024. Accessed: 2024-10-06

    2024

  57. [65]

    Do OFAC reporting obligations apply to “dusting” transactions? https://ofac.treasury.gov/faqs/1078, 2022

    Office of Foreign Assets Control. Do OFAC reporting obligations apply to “dusting” transactions? https://ofac.treasury.gov/faqs/1078, 2022

    2022

  58. [66]

    Decentralized society: Finding web3’s soul

    Puja Ohlhaver, E Glen Weyl, and Vitalik Buterin. Decentralized society: Finding web3’s soul. Available at SSRN 4105763 , 2022

    2022

  59. [67]

    Unlocking the power of data with arm cca

    David O’Neill. Unlocking the power of data with arm cca. https: //community.arm.com/arm-community-blogs/b/architectures-and-p rocessors-blog/posts/unlocking-the-power-of-data-with-arm-cca,

  60. [68]

    What is NFT ticketing? https://opensea.io/learn/nft/what-i s-nft-ticketing

    OpenSea. What is NFT ticketing? https://opensea.io/learn/nft/what-i s-nft-ticketing. Accessed: 2024-11-13

    2024

  61. [69]

    Formal abstractions for attested execution secure processors

    Rafael Pass, Elaine Shi, and Florian Tram `er. Formal abstractions for attested execution secure processors. In EUROCRYPT, pages 260– 289, 2017

    2017

  62. [70]

    Accessed: 2024-10-06. 15

    2024

  63. [71]

    Teevil: Identity lease via trusted execution environments

    Ivan Puddu, Daniele Lain, Moritz Schneider, Elizaveta Tretiakova, Sinisa Matetic, and Srdjan Capkun. Teevil: Identity lease via trusted execution environments. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.00449 , 2019

    1903 arXiv

  64. [72]

    The ‘Dark DAO’ Threat: V ote Vulnerability Could Undermine Crypto Elections

    Rachel-Rose O’Leary. The ‘Dark DAO’ Threat: V ote Vulnerability Could Undermine Crypto Elections. CoinDesk, July 2018. Accessed: 2024-10-23

    2018

  65. [73]

    Ethereum proof-of-stake under scrutiny

    Ulysse Pavloff, Yackolley Amoussou-Guenou, and Sara Tucci- Piergiovanni. Ethereum proof-of-stake under scrutiny. In ACM SAC, SAC ’23, page 212–221. Association for Computing Machinery, 2023

    2023

  66. [74]

    How and where to view crypto transaction histories

    Tanuj Surve. How and where to view crypto transaction histories. Cointelegraph, https://cointelegraph.com/news/how-and-where-to-v iew-crypto-transaction-histories, 6 May 2024

    2024

  67. [75]

    Erc-191: Signed data standard

    Martin Holst Swende and Nick Johnson. Erc-191: Signed data standard. Ethereum Improvement Proposals, January 2016. https: //eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-191

    2016

  68. [76]

    Sandbox player guide

    Sandbox. Sandbox player guide. https://docs.sandbox.game/en/playe rs/player-guide, Sep 2024

    2024

  69. [77]

    Dalton C ´ezane Gomes Valadares, Angelo Perkusich, Aldenor Falc ˜ao Martins, Mohammed B. M. Kamel, and Chris Seline. Privacy- preserving blockchain technologies. Sensors, 23(16), 2023

    2023

  70. [78]

    SGAxe: How SGX fails in practice, 2020

    Stephan van Schaik, Andrew Kwong, Daniel Genkin, and Yuval Yarom. SGAxe: How SGX fails in practice, 2020. https://sgaxe. com/files/SGAxe.pdf

    2020

  71. [79]

    Do you believe in second chances?

    Eli Tan. “Do you believe in second chances?”: Another DAO is raising funds to buy a copy of the US Constitution. CoinDesk, 7 Dec. 2022

    2022

  72. [80]

    Veecon 2024

    Veecon. Veecon 2024. https://veecon.co/tickets. Accessed: 2024-10- 23

    2024

  73. [81]

    Detecting and quan- tifying wash trading on decentralized cryptocurrency exchanges

    Friedhelm Victor and Andrea Marie Weintraud. Detecting and quan- tifying wash trading on decentralized cryptocurrency exchanges. In WWW, page 23–32, New York, NY , USA, 2021. Association for Computing Machinery

    2021

  74. [82]

    Sok: Sgx.fail: How stuff gets exposed

    Stephan Van Schaik, Alex Seto, Thomas Yurek, Adam Batori, Bader AlBassam, Daniel Genkin, Andrew Miller, Eyal Ronen, Yuval Yarom, and Christina Garman. Sok: Sgx.fail: How stuff gets exposed. InIEEE S&P (SP), pages 4143–4162, 2024

    2024

  75. [83]

    ConstitutionDAO — Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Wikipedia contributors. ConstitutionDAO — Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. ”https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Const itutionDAO&oldid=1225513611”, 2024. Accessed: 2024-11-13

    2024

  76. [84]

    zkbridge: Trustless cross-chain bridges made practical

    Tiancheng Xie, Jiaheng Zhang, Zerui Cheng, Fan Zhang, Yupeng Zhang, Yongzheng Jia, Dan Boneh, and Dawn Song. zkbridge: Trustless cross-chain bridges made practical. In ACM CCS, 2022

    2022

  77. [85]

    Paths toward single-slot finality

    Vitalik Buterin. Paths toward single-slot finality. https://notes.ethere um.org/@vbuterin/single slot finality, 2023

    2023

  78. [86]

    Sok: Decentralized finance (defi) attacks

    Liyi Zhou, Xihan Xiong, Jens Ernstberger, Stefanos Chaliasos, Zhipeng Wang, Ye Wang, Kaihua Qin, Roger Wattenhofer, Dawn Song, and Arthur Gervais. Sok: Decentralized finance (defi) attacks. In IEEE S&P, 2023

    2023

  79. [87]

    fake victim

    Zuza Zuber. Snapshot - the technical architecture. https://snapshot.m irror.xyz/-C3bd5TI3XEbPRt FIBB97fkhwXk-81w59CMcoofWUk, 2023. Appendix A. Other Applications This section describes additional applications for Lique- faction in the blockchain ecosystem. A.1. Governance Quad...

    2023

  80. [88]

    Confidentiality support over financial grade consortium blockchain

    Ying Yan, Changzheng Wei, Xuepeng Guo, Xuming Lu, Xiaofu Zheng, Qi Liu, Chenhui Zhou, Xuyang Song, Boran Zhao, Hui Zhang, and Guofei Jiang. Confidentiality support over financial grade consortium blockchain. In ACM SIGMOD, 2020

    2020

  81. [2020]

    Association for Computing Machinery

  82. [2024]

    Accessed: 2024-10-12

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.