Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Trusting a Smart Contract Means Trusting Its Owners: Understanding Centralization Risk

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2312.06510 v1 pith:UXIWIX5M submitted 2023-12-11 cs.CR econ.GNq-fin.EC

Trusting a Smart Contract Means Trusting Its Owners: Understanding Centralization Risk

classification cs.CR econ.GNq-fin.EC
keywords centralizationsmartcontractriskintroducecontractspatternstrusting
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Smart contract access control mechanisms can introduce centralization into supposedly decentralized ecosystems. In our view, such centralization is an overlooked risk of smart contracts that underlies well-known smart contract security incidents. Critically, mitigating the known vulnerability of missing permission verification by implementing authorization patterns can in turn introduce centralization. To delineate the issue, we define centralization risk and describe smart contract source code patterns for Ethereum and Algorand that can introduce it to smart contracts. We explain under which circumstances the centralization can be exploited. Finally, we discuss implications of centralization risk for different smart contract stakeholders.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Ethereum NFT Smart Contracts: Knowledge-Guided Vulnerability Detection with LLM and Code Slicing

    cs.CR 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0

    Code slicing plus a knowledge base raises the LLM's positive-label rate from 73.8% to 97.1% on 450 NFT contracts, an effect not validated against ground truth.