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
Trusting a Smart Contract Means Trusting Its Owners: Understanding Centralization Risk
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.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Ethereum NFT Smart Contracts: Knowledge-Guided Vulnerability Detection with LLM and Code Slicing
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.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.