Why Trick Me: The Honeypot Traps on Decentralized Exchanges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decentralized Exchanges (DEXs) are one of the most important infrastructures in the world of Decentralized Finance (DeFi) and are generally considered more reliable than centralized exchanges (CEXs). However, some well-known decentralized exchanges (e.g., Uniswap) allow the deployment of any unaudited ERC20 tokens, resulting in the creation of numerous honeypot traps designed to steal traders' assets: traders can exchange valuable assets (e.g., ETH) for fraudulent tokens in liquidity pools but are unable to exchange them back for the original assets. In this paper, we introduce honeypot traps on decentralized exchanges and provide a taxonomy for these traps according to the attack effect. For different types of traps, we design a detection scheme based on historical data analysis and transaction simulation. We randomly select 10,000 pools from Uniswap V2 & V3, and then utilize our method to check these pools. Finally, we discover 8,443 abnormal pools, which shows that honeypot traps may exist widely in exchanges like Uniswap. Furthermore, we discuss possible mitigation and defense strategies to protect traders' assets.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".