Mapping the DeFi crime landscape: an evidence-based picture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Decentralized finance (DeFi) has been the target of numerous profit-driven crimes, but the prevalence and cumulative impact of these crimes have not yet been assessed. This study provides a comprehensive assessment of profit-driven crimes targeting the DeFi sector. We collected data on 1141 crime events from 2017 to 2022. Of these, 1036 were related to DeFi (the main focus of this study) and 105 to centralized finance (CeFi). The findings show that the entire cryptoasset industry has suffered a minimum loss of US$30B, with two-thirds related to CeFi and one-third to DeFi. Focusing on DeFi, a taxonomy was developed to clarify the similarities and differences among these crimes. All events were mapped onto the DeFi stack to assess the impacted technical layers, and the financial damages were quantified to gauge their scale. The results highlight that during an attack, a DeFi actor (an entity developing a DeFi technology) can serve as a direct target (due to technical vulnerabilities or exploitation of human risks), as a perpetrator (through malicious uses of contracts or market manipulations), or as an intermediary (by being imitated through, for example, phishing scams). The findings also show that DeFi actors are the first victims of crimes targeting the DeFi industry: 52% of events targeted them, primarily due to technical vulnerabilities at the protocol layer, and these events accounted for 83% of all financial damages. Alternatively, in 41% of events, DeFi actors were themselves malicious perpetrators, predominantly misusing contracts at the cryptoasset layer (e.g. rug pull scams). However, these events accounted for only 17% of all financial damages. The study offers a preliminary assessment of the size and scope of crime events within the DeFi sector and highlights the vulnerable position of DeFi actors in the ecosystem.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".