Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 63 references

PonziLens+: Visualizing Bytecode Actions for Smart Ponzi Scheme Identification

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 PonziLens+ claims that smart Ponzi schemes can be identified from Ethereum bytecode alone by rendering execution as four semantic actions, with three visualization modules giving investors and auditors auditable evidence before they…

desk verdict Useful visual analytics contribution with an honest usability study; the 'any smart Ponzi scheme' claim is overreach and should be cut or qualified. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.18470 v1 pith:TAWXJ5KW submitted 2024-12-24 cs.HC

Xiaolin Wen , Tai D. Nguyen , Shaolun Ruan , Qiaomu Shen , Jun Sun , Feida Zhu , Yong Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords smartPonzischemevisualanalyticsblockchainEthereumbytecodesemanticactionextractionsymbolicexecutionfrauddetectioncontract
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

PonziLens+ argues that smart Ponzi schemes can be identified before a single coin moves, using only the bytecode that is already public on the blockchain. The paper's central claim is that the execution behavior of any Ethereum smart contract can be translated into a short vocabulary of four semantic actions, and that the classic Ponzi pattern of taking money from new investors and paying earlier ones becomes visible as a sequence of those actions. On that basis the authors build a three-level visual analytic system that highlights investing, payment, loop, and rewarding features and presents evidence a user can inspect path by path. The claim matters because existing detection methods are either transaction-based and therefore too late, or code-based and opaque, relying on fixed rules or machine-learned classifiers that new scheme variants can evade. If the paper is right, ordinary investors and auditors get transparent, human-auditable evidence for deciding whether a specific contract is a Ponzi scheme.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the semantic action sequence, produced by a four-step pipeline (S1-S4) over symbolic execution of bytecode. S1 finds opcodes that correspond to actions (e.g. storage writes and payments); S2 parses stack operands as symbolic constraints; S3 resolves which storage slots the operands come from and recognizes variables, arrays, and mappings; S4 translates the results into labels such as Investing, Payment, Loop, Rewarding, Update Information, and Payback. The action sequence is the single representation that feeds all three visualization modules, and its storage-slot links are what make rewarding visible as a concrete money flow from previous investors' addresses.

What would settle it

Run PonziLens+ on a known Ponzi contract whose rewards are paid through an intermediate proxy or delegatecall rather than by the analyzed contract's own Invoke Payment opcode pattern; if the Path Feature Module shows no path group with the investing-to-rewarding link, or a human auditor concludes the contract is benign, the claim that the tool identifies any smart Ponzi scheme fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery is a mapping from raw Ethereum bytecode to readable evidence of fraud. Semantic meaning is extracted from each feasible execution path of a contract through symbolic execution: four actions — Write Information, Invoke Payment, Check Constraint, and Read Information — stand for storing investor data, sending funds, enforcing conditions, and loading values. Inside these actions the system identifies four Ponzi features: investing (investor address written to storage), payment (funds sent out), loop (repeated reward distribution), and rewarding (payment recipient read back from the same storage slot that recorded investors). Three coordinated modules then let a user move from a summary of which path groups carry which features, to merged action-pattern summaries per group, to per-path details including storage-slot interactions and two rounds of each loop. The authors demonstrate the claim with two cases: one typical chain-scheme that a non-auditor investor flags confidently, and one variant that lacks loops and direct rewarding yet is still concluded to be a Ponzi scheme by tracing a withdrawal repayment that grows with each new investment.

Load-bearing premise

The whole identification rests on the assumption that every smart Ponzi scheme's fraudulent logic can be expressed by the four semantic actions and four Ponzi features, so a scheme whose payout mechanism falls outside those categories would not be surfaced at all.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An investor can audit a specific contract before transacting, since deployment bytecode alone is sufficient input.
  • A scheme that evades rule-based detectors because it has no loop or direct reward payment can still be caught if its repayment depends on new investments, as Case 2 shows.
  • Contract auditors can use the tool to double-check labels produced by automatic detectors; the authors report finding mislabeled contracts and previously unclassifiable schemes.
  • The same semantic-action representation may extend beyond Ponzi schemes to other bytecode-level frauds and to general source-code understanding, by swapping in different suspicious behaviors.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the taxonomy is closed at four actions and four features, the tool's 'any smart Ponzi scheme' claim is only as broad as that vocabulary: a contract that hides reward distribution behind an opcode or call pattern not mapped to Invoke Payment would likely read as benign, a limitation the paper acknowledges through participant U3's suggestion of user-defined features.
  • A natural next test is adversarial: compile known Ponzi contracts through obfuscation or proxy patterns and check whether the path-feature summary still highlights the scheme; the paper's own Case 2 already shows one evasion class it can handle.
  • The visualization could be inverted into a labeling engine: human decisions made on the three modules can be recorded and used to retrain or correct automatic Ponzi detectors, effectively turning visual evidence into training data.
  • The two-round loop spiral and storage-link encoding imply a theory of what evidence humans need, so a controlled study varying feature highlighting could test whether highlighting, not the underlying action sequence, drives identification success.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents PonziLens+, a visual analytics system that translates Ethereum smart-contract bytecode into semantic action sequences (Write Information, Invoke Payment, Check Constraint, Read Information) and highlights four Ponzi-related features (Investing, Payment, Loop, Rewarding) across three linked visualization modules. The authors motivate the design with a literature review and interviews with four domain experts, and evaluate the system with two narrated case studies and a 12-participant user interview using 7-point Likert ratings. The central claim is that the tool allows investors and auditors to achieve confident identification of any smart Ponzi scheme, including new variants that lack typical features.

Significance. If the claims were fully supported, this would be a useful contribution to the growing literature on smart-contract fraud analysis: it is, to my knowledge, the first visualization system that abstracts bytecode execution into human-auditable semantic actions for Ponzi identification, and the three-level design (contract, path group, execution path) is well matched to a top-down auditing workflow. The paper is also commendable for deriving design requirements from expert interviews, for using symbolic execution on real bytecode rather than source code, and for openly acknowledging limitations such as symbolic-execution coverage and scalability. The main weakness is that the paper's strongest claim, 'confident identification of any smart Ponzi schemes,' is not supported by the evaluation or by the bounded action/feature taxonomy.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Sections IV-B, V-A, VIII-C, X] The claim that PonziLens+ enables 'confident identification of any smart Ponzi schemes' is not supported. The analysis vocabulary is fixed to four semantic actions and four Ponzi features (PF1-PF4), and the paper itself records participant U3's observation that 'existing Ponzi features and types might not encompass all new Ponzi schemes' (Section VIII-C). Section X then lists 'custom action patterns beyond Ponzi features' as future work, and the evaluation never measures recall on a labeled benchmark. A contract whose fraud is not expressible in this taxonomy, or whose paths are skipped by symbolic execution, would appear clean; the tool cannot discover what its language cannot express. The claim should be weakened to known types of smart Ponzi schemes, or supported by evidence of coverage on a labeled corpus.
  2. [Section VIII-B/C; Fig. 7] The user study does not report whether participants actually identified the test contracts correctly. Participants were asked to verify one Ponzi and one non-Ponzi contract (Section VIII-B), but the results in Section VIII-C and Fig. 7 report only 7-point Likert ratings and qualitative feedback. Without per-participant classification outcomes or a comparison condition (e.g., source-code inspection or an existing detection tool), the conclusion that PonziLens+ is 'effective for intuitively identifying smart Ponzi schemes' rests on self-reported confidence rather than measured identification performance. Please add objective task-accuracy data and, if possible, a baseline comparison.
  3. [Abstract, Section VI; Sections V-B and IX] The phrase 'all potential behaviors' overstates the coverage of the system. Data preparation collects only two loop rounds per execution path (Section V-B), and Section IX acknowledges that symbolic execution may explore paths that are not executable in practice, skip paths that Z3 cannot resolve, and face scalability problems with massive path counts. These are not merely implementation details; they directly bound what can be concluded from a 'clean' result in the visualization. The 'all' and 'any' claims should be qualified with these coverage limits.
  4. [Section VII-B] The second case study is presented as a new variant that evades rule-based detection, but the identified behavior still consists of the same four semantic actions (Check Constraint, Write Information, Invoke Payment with Payback) and is interpreted through the storage-slot analysis that defines PF4. This demonstrates the tool's usefulness for a less typical instance within the existing taxonomy, not adaptability to a scheme outside the taxonomy. The claim of adaptability to 'various smart Ponzi schemes' therefore remains untested; an out-of-taxonomy case or a benchmark of known variants is needed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 5] The caption contains a typo, 'aciton types' should be 'action types'; also, the duplicated 'W' and 'P' labels in the encoding description may confuse readers and should be clarified.
  2. [Section V-C, S4] The labels 'Update Information' and 'Payback' are introduced only in the translation step without a short definition before they appear in the interface description; a brief definition would help readers who encounter them in the Execution Detail Module.
  3. [Section IX] The claim that PonziLens+ 'found some wrong labels provided by the automatic algorithms' in prior research is stated without examples or references, which makes it hard to verify; please provide a concrete instance or cite the relevant labeled data.
  4. [Appendix A, Algorithm 1] The rule 'sharing the same basic block sub-sequence without order conflicts' is stated informally; a precise definition of 'order conflict' would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Ponzi features and semantic actions are grounded in prior literature and expert interviews rather than fitted from the evaluated contracts; the admitted incompleteness is a scope/correctness concern, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

PonziLens+ is a visualization and labeling framework rather than a fitted predictor, so its derivation chain does not reduce to its own inputs. The four Ponzi features (PF1-PF4) and the four action types are defined a priori from prior literature and expert interviews (Section IV-B and Section V-A), and the S4 translation rules (Section V-C) are explicit code-analysis mappings: storing CALLER in a slot is labeled Investing, while a payment that retrieves the payee from that slot is labeled Rewarding. The case studies reuse these highlights as evidence, which is momentarily tautological, but the underlying characterization is external to the two analyzed contracts and is not estimated or fit from them, so no fitted-input-called-prediction step occurs. The paper's own limitations—U3 noting that existing Ponzi features and types might not encompass all new schemes (Section VIII-C), and the Section IX statement that off-chain scams such as PlusToken are out of scope—undermine the overbroad 'any smart Ponzi scheme' wording in the abstract, but that is a scope/correctness issue rather than a circular one. The self-citation to the authors' prior PonziLens (Reference [17]) is contextual and not load-bearing, and the evaluation's reliance on Likert ratings rather than measured classification accuracy is an evidence-strength gap, not circularity. No circular step can be exhibited by quoting a reduction of a result to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The system rests on a small vocabulary of actions and features defined by the authors from prior literature and expert interviews. The only numerical design parameter is the two-round loop collection. The invented entities are conceptual abstractions, not physical ones, but they carry the full explanatory load of the tool and are validated only internally.

free parameters (1)
  • Loop rounds collected per execution path = 2
    Section VI-C chooses two rounds as 'usually adequate' to compare loop rounds; a hand-picked constant that shapes the Execution Detail Module spiral visualization.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The four Ponzi features PF1-PF4, derived from literature and four expert interviews, are sufficient to characterize smart Ponzi scheme behaviors at the bytecode level.
    Section IV-B defines PF1-PF4 as the critical bytecode-level features; the whole tool highlights these features. If scammers create schemes outside this taxonomy, the tool may miss them, as U3 notes in Section VIII-C.
  • domain assumption The four semantic action types (Write Information, Invoke Payment, Check Constraint, Read Information) adequately represent execution behaviors in a way that preserves Ponzi-relevant information.
    Section V-A introduces these action types as the basis for producing action sequences; the user evaluation and case studies rest on this abstraction.
  • standard math Symbolic execution with Teether and Z3 faithfully captures executable paths and their semantics from bytecode CFGs.
    Sections V-B and V-C rely on Teether [55] for CFG construction and symbolic execution and Z3 [57] for constraint solving; the paper's own Limitations section notes that ignoring gas limits can produce non-executable paths and Z3 may skip some paths.
  • domain assumption Bytecode is an adequate analysis input because source code is often unavailable on-chain.
    Section III-A states bytecodes are always accessible while source codes are not, justifying the bytecode-centric pipeline; this also means the tool cannot leverage source-level semantics that might help.
  • ad hoc to paper The path merging strategy (Algorithm 1) preserves the essential backbone of execution paths in each group.
    Appendix A describes the two-step merging heuristics; the resulting visual summaries in the Path Grouping Module depend on this grouping, which may hide distinctions if merging is lossy.
invented entities (2)
  • Semantic action taxonomy (Write Information, Invoke Payment, Check Constraint, Read Information)
    purpose: To translate EVM opcodes into human-readable behaviors that drive all three visualization modules.
    Defined in Section V-A; validated only by the paper's own case studies and user interviews. There is no external falsifiable handle, such as a prediction testable outside PonziLens+.
  • Ponzi Feature PF4 (Rewarding)
    purpose: To make 'payments to previous investors' detectable by linking a payment action to the storage slot holding investor addresses.
    Introduced in Section IV-B; used to draw the black connection line between investing and payment actions. It is a synthesis from prior literature and expert interviews, not independently validated on an external benchmark.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PonziLens+: Visualizing Bytecode Actions for Smart Ponzi Scheme Identification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TAWXJ5KW

@misc{pith2026241218470,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PonziLens+: Visualizing Bytecode Actions for Smart Ponzi Scheme Identification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TAWXJ5KW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.18470}
}
read the original abstract

With the prevalence of smart contracts, smart Ponzi schemes have become a common fraud on blockchain and have caused significant financial loss to cryptocurrency investors in the past few years. Despite the critical importance of detecting smart Ponzi schemes, a reliable and transparent identification approach adaptive to various smart Ponzi schemes is still missing. To fill the research gap, we first extract semantic-meaningful actions to represent the execution behaviors specified in smart contract bytecodes, which are derived from a literature review and in-depth interviews with domain experts. We then propose PonziLens+, a novel visual analytic approach that provides an intuitive and reliable analysis of Ponzi-scheme-related features within these execution behaviors. PonziLens+ has three visualization modules that intuitively reveal all potential behaviors of a smart contract, highlighting fraudulent features across three levels of detail. It can help smart contract investors and auditors achieve confident identification of any smart Ponzi schemes. We conducted two case studies and in-depth user interviews with 12 domain experts and common investors to evaluate PonziLens+. The results demonstrate the effectiveness and usability of PonziLens+ in achieving an effective identification of smart Ponzi schemes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.18470 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The showcase of critical concepts in this study: (A) shows an example [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The framework of PonziLens+. (A) shows the data preparation for the collection of potential execution paths. (B) shows the semantic action extraction that generates semantic action sequences from each execution path. (C) demonstrates three visualization modules in PonziLens+. aid in rapidly assessing the possibility of a Ponzi scheme. Grouping paths with similar Ponzi features helps locate the paths responsible for … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The PonziLens+ interface initially presents the Path Feature Module (A) and Path Grouping Module (B). Upon selecting specific actions of interest, users can access the Execution Detail Module (C), including a scroll bar (C1) to allow users to delve into one single path for more details. can unfold the Execution Detail Module by selecting one or multiple paths from the Path Grouping Module. A. Path Feature Module The… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The visual design of three visualization modules in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A summary of visual encoding used in PonziLens+. Invoke Payment, and specific constraints for Check Constraint. For storage contents, hovering reveals the underlying Z3 constraints that indicate the content’s meaning. Navigating to paths of interest. PonziLens+ enables…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A case for identifying a non-typical smart Ponzi scheme. The Path Feature Module (A) shows no path groups with multiple Ponzi features. However, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The user interview questionnaire results. Q1-Q11 are close-ended questions assessing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The mathematics of ponzi schemes,

    M. Artzrouni, “The mathematics of ponzi schemes,” Mathematical Social Sciences, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 190–201, 2009

    work page 2009

  2. [2]

    Dissecting ponzi schemes on ethereum: Identification, analysis, and impact,

    M. Bartoletti, S. Carta, T. Cimoli, and R. Saia, “Dissecting ponzi schemes on ethereum: Identification, analysis, and impact,” Future Generation Computer Systems , vol. 102, pp. 259–277, 2020

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Cryptocurrency ponzi schemes,

    S. Mukherjee, C. Larkin, and S. Corbet, “Cryptocurrency ponzi schemes,” Understanding cryptocurrency fraud: The challenges and headwinds to regulate digital currencies , vol. 2, p. 111, 2021. JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2021 13

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Detecting ponzi schemes on ethereum: Towards healthier blockchain technology,

    W. Chen, Z. Zheng, J. Cui, E. Ngai, P. Zheng, and Y . Zhou, “Detecting ponzi schemes on ethereum: Towards healthier blockchain technology,” in Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference, 2018, pp. 1409– 1418

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    SEC Moves Against $300 Million Crypto Ponzi Scheme,

    “SEC Moves Against $300 Million Crypto Ponzi Scheme,” https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2023/02/22/forsage-founders-indicted- for-340m-ponzi-scheme-masquerading-as-defi-platform/, 2022, [Online; Accessed 30-January-2024]

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Al-spsd: Anti-leakage smart ponzi schemes detection in blockchain,

    S. Fan, S. Fu, H. Xu, and X. Cheng, “Al-spsd: Anti-leakage smart ponzi schemes detection in blockchain,” Information Processing & Management, vol. 58, no. 4, p. 102587, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Idponzi: An interpretable detection model for identifying smart ponzi schemes,

    X. Feng, Q. Shi, X. Li, H. Liu, and L. Wang, “Idponzi: An interpretable detection model for identifying smart ponzi schemes,” Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence , vol. 136, p. 108868, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Ponzitracker,

    “Ponzitracker,” https://www.ponzitracker.com/2022-ponzi-schemes, 2022, [Online; Accessed 30-January-2024]

    work page 2022

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    Ponzi- guard: Detecting ponzi schemes on ethereum with contract runtime behavior graph,

    R. Liang, J. Chen, K. He, Y . Wu, G. Deng, R. Du, and C. Wu, “Ponzi- guard: Detecting ponzi schemes on ethereum with contract runtime behavior graph,” in Proceedings of 2024 IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering . IEEE, 2024, pp. 755–766

    2024

  2. [10]

    Securing the ethereum from smart ponzi schemes: Identification using static features,

    Z. Zheng, W. Chen, Z. Zhong, Z. Chen, and Y . Lu, “Securing the ethereum from smart ponzi schemes: Identification using static features,” ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology , vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 1–28, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Exploiting blockchain data to detect smart ponzi schemes on ethereum,

    W. Chen, Z. Zheng, E. C.-H. Ngai, P. Zheng, and Y . Zhou, “Exploiting blockchain data to detect smart ponzi schemes on ethereum,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 37 575–37 586, 2019

    2019

  4. [12]

    Ponzi scheme detection via oversampling-based long short-term memory for smart contracts,

    L. Wang, H. Cheng, Z. Zheng, A. Yang, and X. Zhu, “Ponzi scheme detection via oversampling-based long short-term memory for smart contracts,” Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 228, p. 107312, 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Data-driven smart ponzi scheme detection,

    Y . Liang, W. Wu, K. Lei, and F. Wang, “Data-driven smart ponzi scheme detection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.09305 , 2021

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Sharpening ponzi schemes detection on ethereum with machine learning,

    L. Galletta and F. Pinelli, “Sharpening ponzi schemes detection on ethereum with machine learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.04872 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Sadponzi: Detecting and characterizing ponzi schemes in ethereum smart contracts,

    W. Chen, X. Li, Y . Sui, N. He, H. Wang, L. Wu, and X. Luo, “Sadponzi: Detecting and characterizing ponzi schemes in ethereum smart contracts,” in Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems , vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 1–30, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Sourcep: Detecting ponzi schemes on ethereum with source code,

    P. Lu, L. Cai, and K. Yin, “Sourcep: Detecting ponzi schemes on ethereum with source code,” in Proceedings of 2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing , 2024, pp. 4465–4469

    2024

  9. [17]

    Code will tell: Visual identification of ponzi schemes on ethereum,

    X. Wen, K. S. Yeo, Y . Wang, L. Cheng, F. Zhu, and M. Zhu, “Code will tell: Visual identification of ponzi schemes on ethereum,” in Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2023, pp. 1–6

    2023

  10. [18]

    Stan: Towards describing bytecodes of smart contract,

    X. Li, T. Chen, X. Luo, T. Zhang, L. Yu, and Z. Xu, “Stan: Towards describing bytecodes of smart contract,” in Proceedings of 2020 IEEE 20th International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security. IEEE, 2020, pp. 273–284

    2020

  11. [19]

    Smart-graph: Graphical representations for smart contract on the ethereum blockchain,

    G. A. Pierro, “Smart-graph: Graphical representations for smart contract on the ethereum blockchain,” in Proceedings of 2021 IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengineering . IEEE, 2021, pp. 708–714

    2021

  12. [20]

    Visfuzz: Understanding and intervening fuzzing with interactive visualization,

    C. Zhou, M. Wang, J. Liang, Z. Liu, C. Sun, and Y . Jiang, “Visfuzz: Understanding and intervening fuzzing with interactive visualization,” in 2019 34th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE). IEEE, 2019, pp. 1078–1081

    2019

  13. [21]

    Ponzi contracts detection based on improved convolutional neural network,

    Y . Lou, Y . Zhang, and S. Chen, “Ponzi contracts detection based on improved convolutional neural network,” in Proceedings of 2020 IEEE International Conference on Services Computing . IEEE, 2020, pp. 353–360

    2020

  14. [22]

    Evaluating machine- learning techniques for detecting smart ponzi schemes,

    G. Ibba, G. A. Pierro, and M. Di Francesco, “Evaluating machine- learning techniques for detecting smart ponzi schemes,” in Proceedings of 2021 IEEE/ACM 4th International Workshop on Emerging Trends in Software Engineering for Blockchain . IEEE, 2021, pp. 34–40

    2021

  15. [23]

    Expose your mask: Smart ponzi schemes detection on blockchain,

    S. Fan, S. Fu, H. Xu, and C. Zhu, “Expose your mask: Smart ponzi schemes detection on blockchain,” in Proceedings of 2020 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks , 2020, pp. 1–7

    2020

  16. [24]

    Early detection of smart ponzi scheme contracts based on behavior forest similarity,

    W. Sun, G. Xu, Z. Yang, and Z. Chen, “Early detection of smart ponzi scheme contracts based on behavior forest similarity,” in2020 IEEE 20th International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security . IEEE, 2020, pp. 297–309

    2020

  17. [25]

    Visualization of blockchain data: a systematic review,

    N. Tovanich, N. Heulot, J.-D. Fekete, and P. Isenberg, “Visualization of blockchain data: a systematic review,” IEEE Transactions on Visualiza- tion and Computer Graphics , vol. 27, no. 7, pp. 3135–3152, 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    Bitconeview: Visualization of flows in the bitcoin trans- action graph,

    G. Di Battista, V . Di Donato, M. Patrignani, M. Pizzonia, V . Roselli, and R. Tamassia, “Bitconeview: Visualization of flows in the bitcoin trans- action graph,” in Proceedings of 2015 IEEE Symposium on Visualization for Cyber Security . IEEE, 2015, pp. 1–8

    2015

  19. [27]

    Tendrils of crime: Visu- alizing the diffusion of stolen bitcoins,

    M. Ahmed, I. Shumailov, and R. Anderson, “Tendrils of crime: Visu- alizing the diffusion of stolen bitcoins,” in Proceedings of Graphical Models for Security: 5th International Workshop . Springer, 2019, pp. 1–12

    2019

  20. [28]

    Go with the-bitcoin-flow, with visual analytics,

    S. Bistarelli and F. Santini, “Go with the-bitcoin-flow, with visual analytics,” in Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security , 2017, pp. 1–6

    2017

  21. [29]

    Visualizing dynamic bitcoin transaction patterns,

    D. McGinn, D. Birch, D. Akroyd, M. Molina-Solana, Y . Guo, and W. J. Knottenbelt, “Visualizing dynamic bitcoin transaction patterns,” IEEE Transactions on Big Data , vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 109–119, 2016

    2016

  22. [30]

    Nftdisk: Visual detection of wash trading in nft markets,

    X. Wen, Y . Wang, X. Yue, F. Zhu, and M. Zhu, “Nftdisk: Visual detection of wash trading in nft markets,” in Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 2023, pp. 1–15

    2023

  23. [31]

    Exploring entity behavior on the bitcoin blockchain,

    P. Isenberg, C. Kinkeldey, and J.-D. Fekete, “Exploring entity behavior on the bitcoin blockchain,” in Proceedings of VIS 2017-IEEE Conference on Visualization, 2017, pp. 1–2

    2017

  24. [32]

    Bitconduite: Visualizing and analyzing activity on the bitcoin network,

    C. Kinkeldey, J.-D. Fekete, and P. Isenberg, “Bitconduite: Visualizing and analyzing activity on the bitcoin network,” in Posters of EuroVis 2017-Eurographics Conference on Visualization, 2017, p. 3

    2017

  25. [33]

    Bitextract: Interactive visualization for extracting bitcoin exchange in- telligence,

    X. Yue, X. Shu, X. Zhu, X. Du, Z. Yu, D. Papadopoulos, and S. Liu, “Bitextract: Interactive visualization for extracting bitcoin exchange in- telligence,” IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 162–171, 2018

    2018

  26. [34]

    Visual emulation for ethereum’s virtual machine,

    R. Norvill, B. B. F. Pontiveros, R. State, and A. Cullen, “Visual emulation for ethereum’s virtual machine,” in Proceedings of 2018 IEEE/IFIP Network Operations and Management Symposium . IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–4

    2018

  27. [35]

    Cfgexplorer: Designing a visual control flow analytics system around basic program analysis operations,

    S. Devkota and K. E. Isaacs, “Cfgexplorer: Designing a visual control flow analytics system around basic program analysis operations,” in Computer Graphics Forum, vol. 37, no. 3. Wiley Online Library, 2018, pp. 453–464

    2018

  28. [36]

    Cfgconf: Supporting high level requirements for visualizing control flow graphs,

    S. Devkota, M. Legendre, A. Kunen, P. Aschwanden, and K. E. Isaacs, “Cfgconf: Supporting high level requirements for visualizing control flow graphs,” arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv: 2108.03047, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Security code recommendations for smart contract,

    X. Zhou, Y . Chen, H. Guo, X. Chen, and Y . Huang, “Security code recommendations for smart contract,” in Proceedings of 2023 IEEE International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution and Reengi- neering, 2023, pp. 190–200

    2023

  30. [38]

    Diehl, Software visualization: visualizing the structure, behaviour, and evolution of software

    S. Diehl, Software visualization: visualizing the structure, behaviour, and evolution of software . Springer Science & Business Media, 2007

    2007

  31. [39]

    A systematic literature review of modern software visualization,

    N. Chotisarn, L. Merino, X. Zheng, S. Lonapalawong, T. Zhang, M. Xu, and W. Chen, “A systematic literature review of modern software visualization,” Journal of Visualization, vol. 23, pp. 539–558, 2020

    2020

  32. [40]

    Crosscode: Multi-level visualiza- tion of program execution,

    D. Hayatpur, D. Wigdor, and H. Xia, “Crosscode: Multi-level visualiza- tion of program execution,” in Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 2023, pp. 1–13

    2023

  33. [41]

    Preserving command line workflow for a package management system using ascii dag visualization,

    K. E. Isaacs and T. Gamblin, “Preserving command line workflow for a package management system using ascii dag visualization,” IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics , vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 2804–2820, 2018

    2018

  34. [42]

    Visualization of fine-grained code change history,

    Y . Yoon, B. A. Myers, and S. Koo, “Visualization of fine-grained code change history,” in 2013 IEEE symposium on visual languages and human centric computing . IEEE, 2013, pp. 119–126

    2013

  35. [43]

    Githru: visual analytics for understanding software development history through git metadata analysis,

    Y . Kim, J. Kim, H. Jeon, Y .-H. Kim, H. Song, B. Kim, and J. Seo, “Githru: visual analytics for understanding software development history through git metadata analysis,” IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 656–666, 2020

    2020

  36. [44]

    Fctree: Visualization of function calls in execu- tion,

    F. Zhou, Y . Fan, S. Lv, L. Jiang, Z. Chen, J. Yuan, F. Han, H. Jiang, G. Bai, and Y . Zhao, “Fctree: Visualization of function calls in execu- tion,” Information and Software Technology , p. 107545, 2024

    2024

  37. [45]

    Combing the communication hairball: Visualizing parallel execution traces using logical time,

    K. E. Isaacs, P.-T. Bremer, I. Jusufi, T. Gamblin, A. Bhatele, M. Schulz, and B. Hamann, “Combing the communication hairball: Visualizing parallel execution traces using logical time,” IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics , vol. 20, no. 12, pp. 2349–2358, 2014

    2014

  38. [46]

    Clouddet: Interactive visual analysis of anomalous perfor- mances in cloud computing systems,

    K. Xu, Y . Wang, L. Yang, Y . Wang, B. Qiao, S. Qin, Y . Xu, H. Zhang, and H. Qu, “Clouddet: Interactive visual analysis of anomalous perfor- mances in cloud computing systems,” IEEE Transactions on Visualiza- tion and Computer Graphics , vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 1107–1117, 2019

    2019

  39. [47]

    Daisen: A framework for visualizing detailed gpu execution,

    Y . Sun, Y . Zhang, A. Mosallaei, M. D. Shah, C. Dunne, and D. Kaeli, “Daisen: A framework for visualizing detailed gpu execution,” in Com- JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2021 14 puter Graphics Forum, vol. 40, no. 3. Wiley Online Library, 2021, pp. 239–250

    2021

  40. [48]

    La valse: Scalable log visualization for fault characterization in supercomputers

    H. Guo, S. Di, R. Gupta, T. Peterka, and F. Cappello, “La valse: Scalable log visualization for fault characterization in supercomputers.” in Proceedings of EuroVis, 2018, pp. 91–100

    2018

  41. [49]

    Smart contracts: An emerging business model in decentralized finance,

    L. El Hassouni and A. Ouchekkir, “Smart contracts: An emerging business model in decentralized finance,” in International Conference on Digital Technologies and Applications . Springer, 2023, pp. 197– 207

    2023

  42. [50]

    Ethereum: A secure decentralised generalised trans- action ledger,

    G. Wood et al. , “Ethereum: A secure decentralised generalised trans- action ledger,” Ethereum Project Yellow Paper, vol. 151, no. 2014, pp. 1–32, 2014

    2014

  43. [51]

    Dissecting smart contract languages: A survey,

    M. Soud, G. Hj ´almt`ysson, and M. Hamdaqa, “Dissecting smart contract languages: A survey,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.02799 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Opcodes for the evm,

    “Opcodes for the evm,” https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/evm/ opcodes/, 2024, [Online; Accessed 6-November-2024]

    2024

  45. [53]

    Ethersolve: Computing an accurate control-flow graph from ethereum bytecode,

    F. Contro, M. Crosara, M. Ceccato, and M. Dalla Preda, “Ethersolve: Computing an accurate control-flow graph from ethereum bytecode,” in Proceedings of 2021 IEEE/ACM 29th International Conference on Program Comprehension. IEEE, 2021, pp. 127–137

    2021

  46. [54]

    The postmodern ponzi scheme: Empirical analysis of high-yield investment programs,

    T. Moore, J. Han, and R. Clayton, “The postmodern ponzi scheme: Empirical analysis of high-yield investment programs,” in Proceedings of Financial Cryptography and Data Security , vol. 7397. Springer, 2012, pp. 41–56

    2012

  47. [55]

    Teether: Gnawing at ethereum to automatically exploit smart contracts,

    J. Krupp and C. Rossow, “Teether: Gnawing at ethereum to automatically exploit smart contracts,” in Proceedings of 27th USENIX Security Symposium, 2018, pp. 1317–1333

    2018

  48. [56]

    Learning to fuzz from symbolic execution with application to smart contracts,

    J. He, M. Balunovi ´c, N. Ambroladze, P. Tsankov, and M. Vechev, “Learning to fuzz from symbolic execution with application to smart contracts,” in Proceedings of the 2019 ACM SIGSAC conference on computer and communications security , 2019, pp. 531–548

    2019

  49. [57]

    Z3: An efficient smt solver,

    L. De Moura and N. Bjørner, “Z3: An efficient smt solver,” in Pro- ceedings of International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems . Springer, 2008, pp. 337–340

    2008

  50. [58]

    Parallel sets: Interactive explo- ration and visual analysis of categorical data,

    R. Kosara, F. Bendix, and H. Hauser, “Parallel sets: Interactive explo- ration and visual analysis of categorical data,” IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 558–568, 2006

    2006

  51. [59]

    Dos with failed call,

    “Dos with failed call,” https://swcregistry.io/docs/SWC-113/, 2020, [On- line; Accessed 27-August-2024]

    2020

  52. [60]

    The art of the scam: Demystifying honeypots in ethereum smart contracts,

    C. F. Torres, M. Steichen et al. , “The art of the scam: Demystifying honeypots in ethereum smart contracts,” in Proceedings of 28th USENIX Security Symposium, 2019, pp. 1591–1607

    2019

  53. [61]

    Plus token and in- vestor searching behaviour–a cryptocurrency ponzi scheme,

    S. Zhang, D. Zhang, J. Zheng, W. Aerts, and D. Xu, “Plus token and in- vestor searching behaviour–a cryptocurrency ponzi scheme,” Accounting & Finance, vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 4713–4728, 2023

    2023

  54. [62]

    Mobile cyber forensic investigations of web3 wallets on android and ios,

    M. M. Mirza, A. Ozer, and U. Karabiyik, “Mobile cyber forensic investigations of web3 wallets on android and ios,” Applied Sciences , vol. 12, no. 21, p. 11180, 2022. Xiaolin Wen is currently a Ph.D student in the College of Computing and Data Science at Nanyang Technological ...

    2022

  55. [2006]

    A web3 investor who has invested in smart contracts

    He has been a faculty member since 2010. He has received the prestigious LEE KUAN YEW fellowship twice in 2007 and 2022. Jun’s research interests include formal methods, program analysis and lately AI security. His profile can be found at https://sunjun.site. Yong Wang is curr...

    2010

Pith tools

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