What Are Smart Contracts? Everything You Need To Know

As blockchain technology continues to reshape industries, understanding smart contracts is vital for Web3 enthusiasts. These self-executing contracts run on the blockchain without central oversight, enabling decentralized applications (dApps) and financial systems while ensuring trust and efficiency. This guide introduces the key concepts of smart contracts, including their structure, benefits, and essential security practices, helping you explore the dynamic world of smart contracts in Web3.

What Are Smart Contracts?

Smart contracts are digital agreements that automatically execute transactions when specific conditions are met. They are crucial components of blockchain technology, which became popular with the introduction of Blockchain 2.0. Smart contracts allow various processes to run without the need for a middleman.

These contracts run on platforms like the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) and are Turing-complete, meaning they can handle complex computations and logic. Because smart contracts operate on the blockchain, they don’t rely on a central authority, making them decentralized.

Use Cases and Benefits of Smart Contracts

Smart contracts vary in complexity and purpose, from basic transactions to managing entire applications. Common classifications include public (on open blockchains) vs. private (restricted access) contracts and token-based standards like ERC-20 for fungible tokens and ERC-721 for NFTs. They also serve diverse applications, such as token swaps, transfers, and lending.

Decentralized Finance (DeFi) is the leading use case, enabling trustless platforms for lending, borrowing, and trading without middlemen. Tokenized real-world assets, such as real estate and stablecoins, also leverage smart contracts to improve transparency and operational efficiency. They also power up prediction markets like Polymarket, where users can bet on events with verified blockchain outcomes, and lending platforms that facilitate trustless transactions with liquidity incentives.

Smart contracts streamline processes by automating tasks, reducing human error, and eliminating the need for intermediaries. Their efficiency significantly speeds up execution times, while cost reduction is achieved through minimized administrative overhead and lower transaction fees, especially in cross-border payments. Additionally, their immutability ensures that once deployed, they cannot be altered, offering robust security and transparency on the blockchain.

Popular Smart Contract Platforms

Ethereum, powered by EVM and Solidity, remains the most popular platform for smart contract development despite challenges like security vulnerabilities. Emerging competitors like Solana, using the Solana Virtual Machine (SVM) and RUST, and platforms adopting Move, such as Sui and Aptos, are gaining traction for their enhanced scalability and improved programming frameworks.

Immutable Nature of Smart Contracts

One important thing to remember about smart contracts is that once they are deployed on the blockchain, they cannot be changed or updated. This immutability is a key feature of blockchain technology, ensuring that the agreements remain reliable and secure over time.

How Smart Contracts Work

As stated before, smart contracts are Turing-complete structures that run on infrastructures like EVM. They allow users to adopt a programmatical approach to an infrastructure.

// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
pragma solidity ^0.8.0;

contract SimpleWallet {
    mapping(address => uint256) private balances;

    event Deposit(address indexed account, uint256 amount);
    event Withdraw(address indexed account, uint256 amount);

    function deposit() external payable {
        require(msg.value > 0, "Must deposit > 0");
        balances[msg.sender] += msg.value;
        emit Deposit(msg.sender, msg.value);
    }

    function withdraw(uint256 _amount) external {
        require(_amount > 0 && balances[msg.sender] >= _amount, "Invalid withdraw");
        balances[msg.sender] -= _amount;
        payable(msg.sender).transfer(_amount);
        emit Withdraw(msg.sender, _amount);
    }

    function checkBalance(address _account) external view returns (uint256) {
        return balances[_account];
    }

    function contractBalance() external view returns (uint256) {
        return address(this).balance;
    }
}

Once they are coded and deployed to a blockchain, the smart contract becomes a part of the blockchain’s state and is assigned a unique address derived from the deployer’s address and nonce, ensuring that contract addresses are deterministically generated. Through this address, they become accessible to the other contracts and users. Interactions with the contract involve calling its functions or sending funds to its address if it is configured to receive payments. Calls to the contract trigger function executions, where the underlying virtual machine executes the contract’s bytecode instruction by instruction, simulating a virtual stack machine.

Smart contracts operate in a limited scope and are only able to interact with on-chain data and other contracts within the same network. Cross-network or off-chain interactions require oracles or external off-chain computation systems, which provide real-world data or cross-chain functionality. During execution, contracts can emit events, which are logged on the blockchain and indexed for off-chain applications to observe and respond to these changes.

After deployment and during interaction with smart contracts, each transaction goes through a structured handling process to ensure its validity and adherence to blockchain protocol rules. Transactions are initially broadcast to the network and propagated to a pool where validators—or, in some blockchains, miners—pick them up. Validators operate according to the consensus algorithm of the network, such as Proof of Work (PoW), Proof of Stake (PoS), or other advanced mechanisms like Delegated Proof of Stake (DPoS) or Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance (PBFT).

The consensus algorithm enforces the agreement on the blockchain’s state by determining which validator has the authority to propose the next block of transactions, ensuring that only verified and non-conflicting transactions are included. Once validated, transactions are committed to the blockchain, where they become immutable records. Validators are incentivized to act honestly and are subject to penalties or slashing mechanisms in some consensus models if they act against protocol rules or perform invalid operations, maintaining the integrity of the blockchain ecosystem.

The execution of each transaction consumes computational resources, measured as gas. Gas, a fundamental unit in transaction handling, represents the cost of computational steps needed to execute specific operations in the contract. To manage network resources efficiently and prevent abuse, every transaction has a gas limit—an upper bound set by the sender that defines how much they are willing to spend on computation. Complex operations, such as state modifications and storage writes, incur higher gas costs, reflecting the network’s computational load.

Validators are incentivized by the gas fees associated with each transaction, as these fees represent compensation for processing the transaction and securing the network. A transaction’s gas price, typically determined by network conditions, influences its processing speed—higher fees make a transaction more attractive for immediate inclusion in the next block. By regulating demand through gas fees, blockchains maintain a stable, decentralized environment where network integrity is preserved through balanced resource allocation and validator incentives

Here’s an example of how it works:

In this example, a smart contract operates by allowing users to interact with it through blockchain transactions. Users send data and cryptocurrency (such as Ether) to the smart contract, which then executes its predefined code. Validators, or peers on the network, verify the transaction and the contract’s outcome, ensuring that it complies with network rules and is consistent across the blockchain. Once validated, the transaction and contract result are included in a new block, which is added to the blockchain. This process builds a secure, immutable record of all interactions over time, creating a continuous chain of verified transactions and smart contract activities

Once transactions are processed and validated, they become part of the blockchain’s permanent record, and it’s possible to trace each transaction’s journey on-chain through a blockchain explorer. Blockchain explorers provide a transparent interface to query the status and details of transactions, addresses, blocks, and even smart contract interactions. By inputting a transaction hash, address, or block number, users can retrieve information such as transaction confirmations, gas fees, involved addresses, and timestamp data, all updated in real time.

These explorers decode raw blockchain data into a human-readable format, enabling anyone to monitor and verify on-chain activities. For developers, auditors, or participants, explorers reveal critical insights into network performance, contract events, and fund flows, helping ensure transparency, accountability, and data integrity across the network. This access supports the core principles of blockchain technology—trust, transparency, and traceability—making the inner workings of decentralized ecosystems accessible and verifiable by any user

Life Cycle of a Smart Contract

The lifecycle of a smart contract can be divided into five main steps, from writing the code to finalizing its state on the blockchain.

1. Creation: The lifecycle begins with a developer writing the smart contract code. This code defines the contract’s logic, functions, and data structures, all of which dictate how the contract will behave when executed. Once the code is finalized, it is compiled into bytecode, which is compatible with the target blockchain’s virtual machine (e.g., the Ethereum Virtual Machine for Ethereum networks).
2. Deployment: Once compiled, the bytecode is deployed to the blockchain through a transaction. This deployment transaction assigns a unique contract address to the smart contract, derived from the deployer’s address and transaction nonce. Upon deployment, the contract’s code becomes immutable and permanently stored within the blockchain’s state. A block header is created to encapsulate the contract’s address and its associated code, officially publishing the contract on the network.
3. User Interaction: After deployment, users can interact with the smart contract by sending transactions to its unique address. Each transaction specifies the function to be called (method_called()) and any necessary parameters. These transactions enter the blockchain’s pool of pending transactions, awaiting validation by network nodes. The transaction payload, which includes the contract address, method, and parameters, forms the basis of the interaction and determines the specific actions the contract will execute.
4. Validation: Network validators or miners select transactions from the pool and execute the specified contract code on their nodes. Each node runs the same contract logic in a sandboxed environment to ensure consistent results across the network. Multiple nodes execute the contract independently, producing outcomes (denoted as f1, f2, …, fn). These results are then compared to verify consensus; if the outputs match across nodes, the transaction is considered valid. This consensus mechanism ensures that the execution is deterministic, maintaining network reliability and integrity.
5. Finale State Update: Once validated, the final state resulting from the transaction is committed to the blockchain. The block header is updated to include the validated results, reflecting the new state of the smart contract within the blockchain’s immutable ledger. This state update completes the transaction lifecycle, and the blockchain now holds an accurate, tamper-proof record of the contract’s state post-interaction.

The most critical phase of a smart contract’s lifecycle is the creation process. It’s crucial to ensure that it doesn’t include errors that could potentially lead to millions or more funds being lost once it is deployed. 

Main Benefits of Smart Contracts

Smart contracts bring numerous advantages to decentralized applications, enhancing efficiency, security, and trust in a way that traditional systems cannot easily match. Here are some key benefits:

1. Automation and Efficiency

Smart contracts automate complex workflows and eliminate the need for manual intervention in transaction processing. By executing predetermined logic instantly upon meeting specific conditions, they significantly increase efficiency, reduce execution time, and minimize human error. This automation also removes the need to rely on human trust, as smart contracts execute exactly as programmed. As a result, processes that would traditionally require multiple intermediaries or lengthy approval steps can be streamlined, allowing financial and business operations to proceed more rapidly and consistently.

2. Cost Reduction

Smart contracts reduce the operational costs associated with financial transactions by removing intermediaries. Traditional banks and financial institutions often charge substantial fees for processing transactions and providing value-added services. In contrast, smart contracts leverage blockchain technology to minimize these costs. Transaction fees on blockchains are often much lower than traditional fees, and certain blockchain protocols allow for gas subsidization or fee abstraction, where the transaction sender may not bear any direct costs. This cost efficiency is particularly beneficial for cross-border transactions, where intermediary fees and delays are significantly reduced.

3. Enhanced Security

Smart contracts benefit from blockchain’s inherent immutability, which ensures that once a contract is deployed, it cannot be altered or tampered with. This immutability, combined with cryptographic security, provides robust protection against fraud and unauthorized modifications. Furthermore, smart contracts can incorporate cryptographic techniques to enable privacy features, such as zero-knowledge proofs, where only necessary data is revealed while maintaining data confidentiality. However, by default, most smart contract data is transparent, allowing anyone to audit and verify transactions. This transparency strengthens security by making malicious actions more detectable.

4. Trust and Reliability

Operating independently of centralized authorities, smart contracts offer a decentralized, trustless system where predefined rules execute autonomously without external interference. This decentralization eliminates single points of failure commonly found in traditional systems, reducing vulnerability to attacks and manipulation. Although smart contracts come with inherent risks, careful development practices and security audits can help mitigate these issues. A major advantage is the predictability of smart contracts: their outcomes can be simulated and tested before deployment, enabling users to anticipate results with high reliability. This predictability fosters trust, as participants can rely on consistent, transparent behavior across all contract interactions.

Common Smart Contracts Types

Smart contracts fulfill distinct roles within blockchain ecosystems, providing specialized functionalities that drive decentralized applications and enable complex interactions. Below are some of the most widely used smart contract types:

1. Token Contracts

Token contracts are foundational to blockchain assets, representing fungible tokens (e.g., ERC-20) and non-fungible tokens (NFTs, e.g., ERC-721) on platforms like Ethereum. Key standards include:

• ERC-20 (Fungible Tokens): Used for interchangeable tokens such as cryptocurrencies and utility tokens, ERC-20 contracts standardize functions like transfer(), approve(), and transferFrom() for consistency across applications.
• ERC-721 (Non-Fungible Tokens): These tokens are unique and indivisible, making them ideal for digital collectibles, art, and property rights. ERC-721 contracts manage ownership, transferability, and metadata, ensuring each token has distinct properties.
• ERC-1155 (Multi-Token Standard): This standard allows a single contract to manage both fungible and non-fungible tokens, increasing efficiency in applications needing multiple asset types, such as games and DeFi. ERC-1155 contracts support batch transfers, reducing gas costs and facilitating complex asset interactions.

Token contracts establish a consistent foundation for digital assets, enabling broad interoperability across wallets, exchanges, and decentralized applications.

2. Governance Contracts

Governance contracts empower decentralized organizations, particularly DAOs, by enabling on-chain voting mechanisms. Token holders can propose protocol changes, vote on decisions, and influence funding allocations. These contracts often incorporate voting weights (proportional to token holdings) and quorum requirements, ensuring that decisions represent the majority. Upon reaching a consensus threshold, governance contracts automatically execute or schedule the proposed changes, enforcing transparency and community-driven governance.

3. Staking Contracts

Staking contracts allow users to lock tokens in exchange for rewards, commonly used in Proof of Stake (PoS) networks and DeFi protocols. These contracts manage deposits, reward calculations, and penalties. In PoS networks, staking contracts secure the network by requiring validators to stake tokens, which are at risk if they act maliciously. In DeFi, staking contracts incentivize liquidity provision, distributing rewards to users who lock assets in the protocol to support its functionality.

4. Lending and Borrowing Contracts

Lending and borrowing contracts are fundamental to DeFi, allowing users to lend assets for interest or borrow assets by providing collateral. These contracts manage collateralization, interest rates, and liquidations:

• Lending: Users deposit assets to earn interest, which accrues based on the supply and demand of the asset. The contract pools these assets and allows other users to borrow against the pool.
• Borrowing: Users can borrow assets by depositing collateral. The contract enforces over-collateralization, meaning the value of collateral must exceed the borrowed amount. If collateral value drops below a certain threshold, the contract triggers a liquidation process to recover funds.

These contracts eliminate intermediaries, making financial services more accessible and efficient.

5. Yield Farming Contracts

Yield farming contracts allow users to earn additional rewards by providing liquidity to DeFi platforms. Users can deposit assets into these contracts, which are then used within protocols to generate yield. Yield farming contracts often provide rewards in the form of governance tokens or protocol-specific tokens, which incentivize users to lock assets in liquidity pools or staking contracts. This model encourages liquidity provision, enhances protocol stability, and allows users to maximize their returns within decentralized finance ecosystems.

6. Oracle Contracts

Oracle contracts connect smart contracts with off-chain data, enabling them to interact with external information, such as real-time asset prices, sports scores, and weather data. Blockchains are inherently isolated, so oracles act as trusted intermediaries, providing verified data to smart contracts. Oracles typically aggregate data from multiple sources to ensure accuracy, supporting contracts that depend on dynamic, real-world information. Oracles are crucial for DeFi, insurance, and any application requiring reliable off-chain data.

7. Vesting Contracts

Vesting contracts manage the release of tokens over a specified timeline, often used for distributing tokens to team members, investors, or community participants. These contracts lock tokens and release them incrementally according to predefined schedules, which can include cliff periods followed by gradual unlocks. Vesting contracts align incentives by preventing immediate token sales, fostering long-term commitment to the project.

8. Voting Contracts

Voting contracts facilitate secure, transparent on-chain voting. Used widely in DAOs and decentralized governance systems, they record each vote immutably on-chain, ensuring that results cannot be tampered with. Voting contracts support various voting models, including weighted voting (proportional to token holdings), single-choice, multiple-choice, and anonymous voting. This setup guarantees a verifiable voting process that reflects the actual preferences of the community.

9. GameFi Contracts

GameFi (Game Finance) contracts power blockchain-based gaming economies by enabling asset ownership, reward distribution, and in-game economies. Key functionalities of GameFi contracts include:

• In-Game Asset Management: GameFi contracts manage ownership and transfer of in-game assets, often represented as NFTs. Players can own, trade, or use these assets across different games and platforms.
• Reward Mechanisms: These contracts handle play-to-earn mechanics, where players earn cryptocurrency or tokens for achieving milestones, participating in events, or contributing to the game’s ecosystem. Rewards are distributed directly to players’ wallets, creating a decentralized gaming economy.
• Marketplaces: GameFi contracts often facilitate in-game marketplaces where players can buy, sell, or trade items, enabling real economic value for virtual assets. These contracts may interact with external NFT marketplaces, broadening the reach and utility of in-game assets.

GameFi contracts merge gaming with decentralized finance, enabling innovative, player-driven economies that incentivize engagement and asset ownership within virtual worlds.

Smart Contract Security

As smart contracts automate critical financial and operational processes on decentralized platforms, their security is paramount. Unlike traditional software, smart contracts are immutable once deployed, meaning any vulnerabilities or bugs cannot be patched in the same way as conventional applications. This immutability, while enhancing trust, also raises the stakes for security, as flaws can lead to irreversible consequences, including financial loss, data breaches, or exploitative attacks. This section delves into the fundamental principles and advanced techniques needed to secure smart contracts, addressing common vulnerabilities and preventive measures to reduce risk in decentralized environments.

Common Smart Contract vulnerabilities

Below are some of the most critical vulnerabilities, with explanations and real-world case studies.

1. Reentrancy Attacks

Reentrancy attacks occur when a malicious contract repeatedly calls a vulnerable function within a target contract before the initial call completes. This exploit often enables attackers to drain funds or disrupt contract states by recursively re-entering the same function.

• Mechanics: In a reentrancy attack, if a contract sends funds to an external address before updating its internal state, the recipient can call back into the contract and trigger the same function again. This process can be repeated, allowing the attacker to drain funds by bypassing proper state updates.
• Real-Life Example: The most notable reentrancy attack was the 2016 DAO hack on Ethereum, resulting in a $60 million loss. The attacker repeatedly triggered a withdraw function that sent funds before updating the balance, enabling recursive calls to drain funds.

2. Flash Loan Attacks

Flash loans are uncollateralized loans that must be repaid within a single transaction. Attackers exploit flash loans to manipulate DeFi protocols by temporarily inflating or deflating asset prices to gain unauthorized profits.

• Mechanics: Flash loans allow attackers to borrow large sums and manipulate market conditions for a single transaction. By leveraging a flash loan, attackers can influence the prices of assets on decentralized platforms to create arbitrage opportunities or force liquidations.
• Real-Life Example: In October 2021, Cream Finance was hit with a $130 million flash loan attack. The attacker borrowed large amounts of assets to manipulate the price oracle and drain funds by exploiting under-collateralized loans, leading to one of the largest DeFi losses at the time.

3. Unchecked External Calls

Unchecked external calls occur when a contract calls an external address without verifying the response. This oversight can lead to incomplete transactions, broken logic, or unexpected states if the called contract fails.

• Mechanics: When a contract uses low-level calls (call, delegatecall, send) without checking the return value, it risks proceeding with flawed logic if the external call fails, leading to unexpected outcomes.
• Real-Life Example: The 2017 Parity Wallet hack resulted from an unchecked call vulnerability. Due to a flawed delegate call, an attacker was able to execute the initWallet function on an already-deployed wallet contract, allowing unauthorized access and the eventual freezing of $150 million worth of Ethereum.

4. Denial of Service (DoS)

DoS attacks aim to render parts of a smart contract inaccessible by exploiting gas limits or blocking specific functions. Attackers often use this tactic to disrupt functions that involve large data structures or rely on shared resources.

• Mechanics: Attackers can overload contracts by adding large amounts of data or forcing gas-heavy operations. For instance, if a contract iterates over a list of addresses to process payouts, an attacker could add excessive entries to consume gas, causing function failure.
• Real-Life Example: In the 2020 Harvest Finance hack, an attacker manipulated token prices and overloaded the contract with transactions, resulting in significant losses for the protocol. The attacker exploited gas limitations and the lack of proper rate-limiting for operations.

5. Access Control Issues

Access control issues arise when functions are not properly restricted, allowing unauthorized users to execute sensitive operations within the contract.

• Mechanics: If a contract lacks sufficient access controls, anyone can execute privileged functions like withdraw or selfdestruct, potentially leading to unauthorized access and fund loss.
• Real-Life Example: In October 2024, Radiant Capital lost over $50 million after attackers injected malware to intercept transaction approvals, manipulate Safe{Wallet} data, and seize control of the LendingPoolAddressesProvider contract for unauthorized updates. Live monitoring tools like Extractor could have automatically detected the anomaly, potentially preventing $18 billion in BNB Chain losses.

6. Front-Running and Sandwich Attacks

Front-running attacks occur when attackers monitor pending transactions in the mempool and submit their transactions with a higher gas fee to be processed first. In sandwich attacks, attackers surround a user’s transaction with buy and sell orders to manipulate the asset price for profit.

• Mechanics: In a sandwich attack, the attacker first places a buy order to inflate the price, allowing the user to execute their transaction at the inflated price and then sell to capture a profit. Front-running exploits price slippage and timing to achieve a favorable outcome.
• Real-Life Example: Uniswap has experienced numerous sandwich attacks where attackers manipulate the price of tokens around high-value transactions. In 2020, an Ethereum user lost thousands of dollars to a sandwich attack on Uniswap due to an unexpected price change from an attacker’s surrounding trades.

7. Oracle Manipulation Attacks

Oracle manipulation attacks exploit the reliance of smart contracts on external data sources, such as price feeds or event outcomes. Attackers manipulate oracles to feed false information to contracts, leading to incorrect calculations or unintended behavior.

• Mechanics: Attackers can exploit price oracles by creating a temporary market fluctuation on low-liquidity exchanges or pools. This altered price feeds into the oracle, allowing the attacker to manipulate actions based on false data.
• Real-Life Example: In November 2020, Compound was targeted in an Oracle manipulation attack. Attackers influenced the DAI price on Uniswap, affecting Compound’s price feed. This caused improper liquidations and a loss of millions of dollars.

8. Self-Destruct and Delegatecall Vulnerabilities

The selfdestruct function can permanently delete a contract, which can be misused if not adequately restricted. Improper use of delegatecall can also enable arbitrary code execution in the caller’s context, allowing attackers to control storage and state.

• Mechanics: selfdestruct removes a contract from the blockchain while delegatecall allows a contract to execute another contract’s code in its own storage context. Improper use of either function can lead to loss of control or fund access.
• Real-Life Example: The 2017 Parity Wallet hack involved misuse of delegatecall, which allowed an attacker to take control of a wallet’s logic and eventually delete the contract. This incident froze over $150 million in Ethereum.

9. Logical and Business Logic Vulnerabilities

Logical vulnerabilities stem from flawed contract logic or misalignment with intended business rules, causing unintended behaviors and financial loss.

• Mechanics: Logical vulnerabilities arise when the contract’s functions or incentives are not correctly aligned with the project’s objectives. For instance, errors in reward distribution, faulty withdrawal limits, or misconfigured calculations can lead to significant losses.
• Real-Life Example: In 2021, the Thorchain platform suffered a $7.7 million exploit due to a logic flaw in its router contract, allowing an attacker to bypass checks and receive multiple rewards per transaction. The business logic oversight caused rapid fund depletion.

Best Practices

To build and maintain secure smart contracts, it’s essential to incorporate security measures throughout development, deployment, and ongoing management. Here are some fundamental best practices:

1. Conduct Regular Security Audits

Security audits by external, reputable firms are essential for detecting vulnerabilities before deployment. Professional auditors perform in-depth analyses of the contract code, review the logic, identify vulnerabilities, and provide a detailed report with recommended fixes. Regular audits, especially before significant releases or upgrades, ensure that contracts remain secure as they evolve.

2. Establish Clear Security Policies and Guidelines

Define security policies that outline coding standards, vulnerability handling procedures, and development practices. Establish secure coding guidelines for the team, detailing specific rules for functions, access controls, and testing standards. Additionally, specify roles and permissions for contract upgrades, administrative controls, and other privileged functions to prevent unauthorized changes.

3. Implement Fail-Safes and Emergency Controls

Implement fail-safe mechanisms like pausable contracts, which enable administrators to halt operations in case of suspicious activity or an active attack. Adding a pause or emergency stop function allows the team to address issues before they escalate, minimizing the risk of loss. Frameworks like OpenZeppelin’s Pausable library provide simple ways to incorporate these controls.

4. Incentivize Security Research with Bug Bounty Programs

Encourage the broader security community to identify potential vulnerabilities by offering a bug bounty program. Platforms like HackenProof allow projects to reward independent security researchers for responsibly reporting bugs. Bounties incentivize white-hat hackers to find issues that might go undetected, enhancing security without direct internal resource costs.

5. Limit Privileged Roles and Require Multi-Signature Approval

For critical actions like upgrades, fund transfers, or administrative tasks, limit the number of users with access and use of multi-signature wallets. Multi-signature setups require multiple trusted parties to approve a transaction, adding an additional layer of security and accountability. This reduces the risk of unauthorized access, insider threats, and single points of failure.

6. Develop and Enforce a Strict Testing Policy

Testing is crucial for identifying potential vulnerabilities early in the development cycle. Adopt a policy that requires rigorous unit testing, integration testing, and fuzz testing to evaluate the contract’s behavior under normal and unexpected conditions. Test edge cases, high-stress scenarios, and interactions with external contracts to ensure the contract’s stability and reliability.

7. Document the Code and Maintain Transparent Communication

Clear and thorough documentation of the contract code, architecture, and functionality makes it easier for developers, auditors, and the community to understand and assess security risks. In the event of security incidents or critical updates, maintain transparent communication with the community to foster trust and ensure that users understand the measures taken.

8. Incident Response and On-Chain Monitoring

Combine incident response planning with real-time monitoring to address security threats effectively. While manual monitoring via tools like Etherscan is an option, adopting ready-made solutions like Extractor streamlines the process with automated detection, prevention, and root cause analysis, ensuring faster and more comprehensive threat management.

Auditing Tools

Auditing tools play a crucial role in identifying vulnerabilities and enhancing smart contract security by automating parts of the review process and efficiently detecting common issues. However, they are just one part of a complete smart contract auditing process, which relies on human expertise to interpret results, analyze complex logic, and validate findings.

Key techniques for vulnerability analysis include static analysis, fuzzing, and formal verification, which together form the foundation of a thorough and reliable audit.

• Static Analysis: In smart contracts, static analysis involves analyzing a contract’s source or bytecode. As the name suggests, static analysis is conducted before the contract is deployed on any block. This type of analysis can be likened to debugging performed on code. The primary goal of static analysis is to identify logical errors and insecure coding practices in the contract, preventing vulnerabilities from being exploited once the contract is live on a block. Another commonly used technique in static analysis is symbolic execution. The logic behind symbolic execution involves simulating program execution by using symbolic values instead of specific inputs, thereby capturing the constraints and branches that may occur during runtime. In summary, the main purpose of symbolic execution is to explore the possible paths and branches within a program’s execution. While it may not initially appear directly related to vulnerability detection, it should be noted that vulnerabilities also arise from specific branches triggered by particular inputs in a program. Static analysis is not expected to uncover previously undefined findings. However, it is worth mentioning that static analysis is a widely used and effective method, not only in smart contract analysis but in other fields as well, particularly in identifying known issues. Although static analysis is comprehensive and can yield quick results, it often suffers from false positives and false negatives, which can be a drawback.
• Runtime Verification: Runtime verification is another method used for dynamic analysis. It operates in two different ways. The first and most common approach is to monitor a contract’s behavior on the network, identifying and rejecting potentially harmful transactions. This method functions similarly to an IDS/IPS system designed for smart contracts. The second approach involves embedding protective code within contracts. While runtime verification can be powerful, it may sometimes generate false positives (benign behaviors flagged as malicious) or false negatives (malicious behaviors that go undetected). Careful tuning of verification parameters and rules is essential to balance security and usability. Overly strict verification might disrupt normal contract functionality, while too lenient parameters could allow certain attacks to bypass detection.
• Fuzzing: In traditional fuzzing, a program is executed with random inputs to gather information about it. Fuzzing for smart contracts follows the same logic. The fuzzing method generally works as follows:

1. The ABI or bytecode of the smart contract is examined to gather information about the values that its functions accept. This step applies unless a black-box fuzzing approach is used.
2. Based on the output of the previous step, valid inputs are generated for the contract’s functions. These inputs can then be subjected to various mutations to make them random.
3. The contract is executed with all generated values, and the results are analyzed. Vulnerabilities are identified from the outcomes and presented to the user.

There are three main approaches to fuzzing based on different techniques: black-box, white-box, and gray-box fuzzing.

• Black-Box Fuzzing: In this method, tests are conducted with completely random inputs without any prior knowledge of the contract (such as its functions or the inputs it can take). The aim is to discover vulnerabilities within the contract by using entirely random inputs. While this approach is more practical and yields faster results than other methods, it is also more rudimentary. Additionally, it falls behind its peers in terms of discovering new branches, code coverage, and result effectiveness.
• White-Box Fuzzing: This approach is the opposite of black-box fuzzing. Here, information about the contract is gathered, and inputs are generated based on this information. This process involves continuously running the contract with symbolic and real inputs to understand its constraints and branches. The contract is then tested using inputs generated in line with these requirements. Although this method offers broader coverage than the black-box approach, defining constraints and suitable inputs for each branch may lengthen the testing process.
• Gray-Box Fuzzing: Gray-box fuzzing combines elements of both previously mentioned approaches. As a result, its outcomes are typically an average of the two. Unlike black-box fuzzing, gray-box fuzzing generates inputs with some knowledge of the program, but this understanding is not as detailed as in the white-box approach. To cover the scope needed, gray-box fuzzers use a technique known as lightweight instrumentation
• Formal Verification: Formal verification is a method used to check whether a design possesses its intended properties independently of smart contracts. These checks are usually performed using theorem provers or mathematical approaches. In smart contracts, formal verification typically assesses the following properties: functional consistency, runtime safety, reliability, and robustness. Two popular formal verification methods stand out: theorem proving and program verification.
  • In the theorem-proving method, the contract and its expected values are encoded as a mathematical formula. Based on the contract’s axioms and inference rules, a proof is derived from this encoding.
  • Program verification, on the other hand, generally involves translating the source code of smart contracts into the programming languages used by verification tools. The converted code is then analyzed using the proof engines within these tools.

Further Resources on Smart Contract Security 

For anyone looking to secure their smart contracts, adhering to best practices in the ecosystem is smart. With resources like Hacken’s Smart Contract Security Guideline, a summary of the Most Common Smart Contract Vulnerabilities, a Guide to Auditing Smart Contracts, and a Review of Auditing Tools, you will be well on your way to securing your contracts.

Follow @hackenclub on 𝕏 (Twitter)

Smart Contracts Are Great, But They Must Be Secure!

Smart contracts hold transformative potential for the Web3 landscape, bringing about a new era of trustless, automated transactions across various sectors. Their ability to execute agreements without intermediaries has unlocked a range of applications, from finance to governance, demonstrating their power and versatility. However, as with any powerful tool, smart contracts require a rigorous approach to security. By following established best practices and leveraging resources like security guidelines and auditing tools, it is possible to reduce risks and enhance contract integrity.