Semantic Sleuth: Identifying Ponzi Contracts via Large Language Models
Cong Wu, Jing Chen, Ziwei Wang, Ruichao Liang, Ruiying Du
Abstract
Smart contracts, self-executing agreements directly encoded in code, are fundamental to blockchain technology, especially in decentralized finance (DeFi) and Web3. However, the rise of Ponzi schemes in smart contracts poses significant risks, leading to substantial financial losses and eroding trust in blockchain systems. Existing detection methods, such as PonziGuard, depend on large amounts of labeled data and struggle to identify unseen Ponzi schemes, limiting their reliability and generalizability. In contrast, we introduce PonziSleuth, the first LLM-driven approach for detecting Ponzi smart contracts, which requires no labeled training data. PonziSleuth utilizes advanced language understanding capabilities of LLMs to analyze smart contract source code through a novel two-step zero-shot chain-of-thought prompting technique. Our extensive evaluation on benchmark datasets and real-world contracts demonstrates that PonziSleuth delivers comparable, and often superior, performance without the extensive data requirements, achieving a balanced detection accuracy of 96.06% with GPT-3.5-turbo, 93.91% with LLAMA3, and 94.27% with Mistral. In real-world detection, PonziSleuth successfully identified 15 new Ponzi schemes from 4,597 contracts verified by Etherscan in March 2024, with a false negative rate of 0% and a false positive rate of 0.29%. These results highlight PonziSleuth's capability to detect diverse and novel Ponzi schemes, marking a significant advancement in leveraging LLMs for enhancing blockchain security and mitigating financial scams.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Cited by top-tier papers3
- Chasing Shadows: Pitfalls in LLM Security ResearchJonathan Evertz, Niklas Risse, Nicolai Neuer, Andreas Müller et al.NDSS 2026 · 17 citations
- Reflections on the Reproducibility of Commercial LLM Performance in Empirical Software Engineering StudiesFlorian Angermeir, Maximilian Amougou, Mark Kreitz, Andreas Bauer et al.ICSE 2026 · 1 citation
- Belobog: Move Language Fuzzing Framework for Real-World Smart ContractsZiqiao Kong, Wanxu Xia, Zhengwei Li, Yi Lu et al.ISSTA 2026
Builds on8
- Making Smart Contracts SmarterLoi Luu, Duc-Hiep Chu, Hrishi Olickel, Prateek Saxena et al.CCS 2016 · 2,306 citations
- Empirical review of automated analysis tools on 47, 587 Ethereum smart contractsThomas Durieux, João F. Ferreira, Rui Abreu, Pedro CruzICSE 2020 · 373 citations
- Sereum: Protecting Existing Smart Contracts Against Re-Entrancy AttacksMichael Rodler, Wenting Li, Ghassan O. Karame, Lucas DaviNDSS 2019 · 298 citations
- Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations?David Cheng-Han Chiang, Hung-yi LeeACL 2023 · 254 citations
- GPTScan: Detecting Logic Vulnerabilities in Smart Contracts by Combining GPT with Program AnalysisYuqiang Sun, Daoyuan Wu, Yue Xue, Han Liu et al.ICSE 2024 · 131 citations
Related papers
- PonziGuard: Detecting Ponzi Schemes on Ethereum with Contract Runtime Behavior Graph (CRBG)Ruichao Liang, Jing Chen, Kun He, Yueming Wu et al.ICSE 2024 · 60 citations
- Smart-LLaMA-DPO: Reinforced Large Language Model for Explainable Smart Contract Vulnerability DetectionLei Yu, Zhirong Huang, Hang Yuan, Shiqi Cheng et al.ISSTA 2025 · 13 citations
- OctopusGuard: K-Line Enhanced Token Scam Detector Powered by Multimodal LLMsLitong Sun, YangTian Mi, Xiapu Luo, Weigang WuICSE 2026
- Hyperion: Unveiling DApp Inconsistencies Using LLM and Dataflow-Guided Symbolic ExecutionShuo Yang, Xingwei Lin, Jiachi Chen, Qingyuan Zhong et al.ICSE 2025 · 6 citations
- The Deception Delta: Adversarial Evaluation of LLM-Based Smart Contract Bytecode ForensicsTimo SchefoldCCS 2026
