Paper detail

SSR: Safeguarding Staking Rewards by Defining and Detecting Logical Defects in DeFi Staking

Decentralized Finance (DeFi) staking is one of the most prominent applications within the DeFi ecosystem, where DeFi projects enable users to stake tokens on the platform and reward participants with additional tokens. However, logical defects in DeFi staking could enable attackers to claim unwarranted rewards by manipulating reward amounts, repeatedly claiming rewards, or engaging in other malicious actions. To mitigate these threats, we conducted the first study focused on defining and detecting logical defects in DeFi staking. Through the analysis of 64 security incidents and 144 audit reports, we identified six distinct types of logical defects, each accompanied by detailed descriptions and code examples. Building on this empirical research, we developed SSR (Safeguarding Staking Reward), a static analysis tool designed to detect logical defects in DeFi staking contracts. SSR utilizes a large language model (LLM) to extract fundamental information about staking logic and constructs a DeFi staking model. It then identifies logical defects by analyzing the model and the associated semantic features. We constructed a ground truth dataset based on known security incidents and audit reports to evaluate the effectiveness of SSR. The results indicate that SSR achieves an overall precision of 92.31%, a recall of 87.92%, and an F1-score of 88.85%. Additionally, to assess the prevalence of logical defects in real-world smart contracts, we compiled a large-scale dataset of 15,992 DeFi staking contracts. SSR detected that 3,557 (22.24%) of these contracts contained at least one logical defect.

preprint2026arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.