End-user Comprehension of Transfer Risks in Smart Contracts

July 16, 2024 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› arXiv.org

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Yustynn Panicker, Ezekiel Soremekun, Sudipta Chattopadhyay, Sumei Sun arXiv ID 2407.11440 Category cs.SE: Software Engineering Citations 1 Venue arXiv.org Last Checked 5 months ago
Abstract
Smart contracts are increasingly used in critical use cases (e.g., financial transactions). Thus, it is pertinent to ensure that end-users understand the transfer risks in smart contracts. To address this, we investigate end-user comprehension of risks in the most popular Ethereum smart contract (i.e., USD Tether (USDT)) and their prevalence in the top ERC-20 smart contracts. We focus on five transfer risks with severe impact on transfer outcomes and user objectives, including users being blacklisted, contract being paused, and contract being arbitrarily upgraded. Firstly, we conducted a user study investigating end-user comprehension of smart contract transfer risks with 110 participants and USDT/MetaMask. Secondly, we performed manual and automated source code analysis of the next top (78) ERC-20 smart contracts (after USDT) to identify the prevalence of these risks. Results show that end-users do not comprehend real risks: most (up to 71.8% of) users believe contract upgrade and blacklisting are highly severe/surprising. More importantly, twice as many users find it easier to discover successful outcomes than risky outcomes using the USDT/MetaMask UI flow. These results hold regardless of the self-rated programming and Web3 proficiency of participants. Furthermore, our source code analysis demonstrates that the examined risks are prevalent in up to 19.2% of the top ERC-20 contracts. Additionally, we discovered (three) other risks with up to 25.6% prevalence in these contracts. This study informs the need to provide explainable smart contracts, understandable UI and relevant information for risky outcomes.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Software Engineering

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted