Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 35 references

Immutable Digital Recognition via Blockchain

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A two-tier blockchain design makes electronic badges authentic, unique, immutable, and publicly verifiable.

desk verdict A policy-level architecture for a hybrid central/decentralized badge system; the security claims are asserted, not demonstrated, and the identity-binding gap is load-bearing. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.18750 v2 pith:UST7NY7Q submitted 2025-08-26 cs.CR

Zeng Zhang , Xiaoqi Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CR
keywords blockchainelectroniccertificationNFTsmartcontractdigitalbadgehybridarchitecturecommunityvotingtamper-resistance
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes a blockchain-based electronic medal and certification system that combines a centralized authoritative database with decentralized platform operations. It argues that mapping the badge system's four security requirements—authenticity, uniqueness, immutability, verifiability—onto blockchain properties such as distributed storage, tamper-resistance, transparency, and smart contracts is enough to make digital certificates trustworthy. The design adds a state-run authoritative database as the final reviewer and issuer of official NFT identifiers, while platforms design and award badges, sometimes through on-chain community voting. If the system works as described, a badge certified once by the central authority could be displayed and verified across all platforms, addressing inconsistent issuance standards, weak trust, and low public participation.

What carries the argument

The central object is the mapping between the electronic badge system's four security requirements and blockchain's four properties: authenticity maps to distributed storage, immutability to hash-chain tamper-resistance, verifiability to transparency and traceability, and uniqueness to NFT identifiers minted by smart contracts. Around that mapping, the paper builds a two-tier governance mechanism: a centralized authoritative database, run by a state-designated institution, defines badge standards, reviews certification applications, and issues official NFT identifiers; decentralized platforms design and award badges, including via on-chain community voting. The 'converged architecture' is th

What would settle it

Deploy the proposed NFT-badge contract from an address that is not on any authorized-issuer list, using the same metadata schema the central database defines, and mint a badge for a test recipient. If the system's verification logic cannot distinguish that badge from an officially certified one, the claimed authenticity and uniqueness protections fail. The test is conclusive only if the architecture lacks a public registry binding issuer addresses to approved institutions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a hybrid electronic certification system can satisfy the four security requirements of a badge system by aligning them with blockchain's inherent properties. Distributed storage supports authenticity and availability; hash-chain tamper-resistance supports immutability; public transparency and traceability support verifiability; and NFT identifiers minted by smart contracts support uniqueness and automated issuance. Around this mapping, the paper constructs a two-tier architecture: a centralized authoritative database, run by a state-designated institution, defines badge standards, reviews certification applications, and issues official blockchain-based NFT i

Load-bearing premise

The system assumes that writing a badge and an NFT to a blockchain, plus central review, is enough to make it authentic and unique; that only holds if every issuing platform's blockchain identity is provably bound to the real-world institution the central authority approved, and the paper specifies no identity-binding or key-management mechanism.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A badge certified by the central database receives an official NFT identifier and becomes displayable and verifiable across all participating platforms.
  • Smart contracts can mint badges automatically when users meet predefined conditions, while governance-level contracts preserve state review, revocation, and appeals.
  • On-chain community voting gives the public a visible role in awarding subjective badges, making the selection process auditable.
  • The centralized review step acts as a final filter to keep non-compliant or unsafe badge designs out of the official ecosystem.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper leaves implicit how an issuing platform's blockchain address is linked to the institution approved by the central database; without a public registry or delegated identity system, an unapproved party could mint badges that are structurally indistinguishable from official ones.
  • The abstract lists RSA blind signatures among the key technologies, but the full text does not detail where they are used; a concrete completion would apply them to make community votes private while keeping ballots verifiable.
  • The same two-tier architecture could transfer to academic credentials or professional licenses, where a central authority must stay the source of truth but many independent issuers create records; that extension would need to confront privacy rules more directly.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a hybrid blockchain-based electronic badge/certification system that combines a centralized authoritative database (government or state-owned institutions) with decentralized platform operations. It argues that using blockchain properties—distributed storage, tamper-resistance, transparency/traceability, and smart contracts—together with NFTs and an electronic voting mechanism, can deliver a "secure, legal, reliable, and dynamic" certification system. The manuscript describes the architecture, workflows, and claimed advantages, but provides no formal protocol specification, threat model, security proof, or implementation.

Significance. If the proposed architecture were rigorously specified and analyzed, it could serve as a useful reference design for regulated digital credentials that require both government oversight and blockchain-based verifiability. The paper also usefully distinguishes platform-level badges from certification-level badges. However, the central security claims are asserted rather than demonstrated. There is no threat model, no identity-binding mechanism, no cryptographic construction, and no evaluation. As it stands, the contribution is a conceptual architecture sketch, not a validated security solution.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3 and §4.3] The security argument is an assertion of inheritance. Section 3.2 defines authenticity as issuance by a legitimate authorized institution and uniqueness as award to a unique recipient. Section 3.3 maps these requirements onto generic blockchain features, and Section 4.3 concludes that unique identifiers achieve 'data authenticity, immutability, and proof of ownership.' This implication is invalid without a cryptographically verified binding between the minting key/address and the real-world institution. The architecture in §4.1 mentions 'qualified platforms' and a central authoritative database, but never specifies how a verifier checks that an NFT was minted by an authorized party. An attacker can generate a fresh keypair and mint a badge with an official institution's name and metadata; the ledger records it with the same tamper-resistance as an official badge. Thus the Authenticity an
  2. [§3.2, §3.3, §4.1] The Uniqueness requirement is not met by NFT non-fungibility. NFT uniqueness is uniqueness of a token identifier, not uniqueness of a recipient's real-world identity. The paper states in §4.1 that the blockchain stores 'holder address,' which is a wallet identifier, not a person identity. No mechanism is specified to bind a recipient to a real-world identity or to prevent the same achievement being awarded twice to the same person across platforms. A user can generate multiple addresses, and an adversary can claim any address. Without an identity-binding mechanism, the 'awarded to a unique recipient' requirement is unfulfilled.
  3. [Abstract vs. body] The abstract states that the study employs 'NFTs, smart contracts, and RSA blind signatures, among other key technologies.' However, the full text contains no mention, definition, or use of RSA blind signatures; Sections 3 and 4 discuss only blockchain, NFTs, smart contracts, and voting. This is not a stylistic inconsistency. A blind signature scheme would be a load-bearing component for privacy-preserving certification, and its absence means the claimed security properties cannot be evaluated from the manuscript. Either the abstract must be corrected or the body must include the construction.
  4. [General (Sections 1-4)] The paper provides no threat model, adversary model, or security proof. The central claim that the system is 'secure, legal, reliable, and dynamic' is stated in the abstract and reiterated in Sections 3.2-3.3 and 4.3, but the manuscript never defines what an adversary can and cannot do, nor does it specify the cryptographic protocols that would underpin the claims. For a paper in cs.CR, this is a load-bearing gap. The manuscript should either be repositioned as a position paper with explicitly limited claims or supplemented with a formal protocol specification and adversarial analysis.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Headings] Section 3 heading is misspelled 'IMPLEMENTAION' and Section 5 heading is 'CONCLUTION.'
  2. [Text and references] There are formatting issues such as '[13] . Its' and reference [20] containing 'preprint-barXiv:2105.07447.' Reference formatting is inconsistent across the bibliography.
  3. [Figures] Several figures (e.g., Figures 5, 8, 10) are referenced only by caption and are not discussed substantively in the main text. The reader cannot extract the workflow details solely from the figures.
  4. [Abstract] The abstract uses 'this thesis' language, which is inappropriate for a journal/conference paper submission.
  5. [Policy references] The claim that the system aligns with 'national policy directives' is vague and unsupported. If policy alignment is a design requirement, the relevant regulations should be named and cited.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation; the paper is a design/architecture proposal with no fitted parameters, equations, or self-citation chain that reduces the central claim to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper does not contain a derivation chain in the sense of equations or fitted parameters. Its central claim is that combining blockchain properties (distributed storage, tamper-resistance, transparency, smart contracts) with a centralized authoritative database yields a secure electronic certification system. This is an architectural assertion, not a mathematical or statistical derivation. The security requirements in §3.2 (authenticity, uniqueness, immutability, verifiability) are stated as desiderata, and §3.3 maps them onto blockchain features; that mapping is not circular by construction—it is a design argument. The cited self-references (e.g., refs [4], [14], [23], [34]) support background facts about blockchain and smart contracts, but they are not load-bearing in a way that makes the conclusion equivalent to an unverified premise: the paper's proposal would stand or fall on the actual implementation and on the missing identity-binding mechanism, not on those citations. The gap between blockchain properties and the claimed authenticity/uniqueness guarantees (no mechanism binds a blockchain address to a real-world issuer) is a correctness/security limitation, not circularity. There is no fitted input renamed as prediction, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors, no ansatz smuggled in via citation, and no renaming of a known result. Therefore the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters or new entities. It relies on domain assumptions about blockchain guarantees, legal constraints, and the reliability of a centralized review process. These assumptions are not formally verified.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption A fully decentralised system is not legally recognised under current national policy directives.
    Invoked in Section 1 and Section 4 to justify the hybrid "centralised authority plus decentralised platforms" design; if this premise is false or changes, the system's core design rationale collapses.
  • domain assumption Blockchain's properties (distributed storage, anti-tampering, transparency, smart contracts) directly satisfy the stated security requirements of a badge system.
    Section 3.3 maps each blockchain characteristic one-to-one to a security requirement; this is an unproved modeling assumption that conflates technical features with guaranteed security outcomes.
  • domain assumption A centralised review process can reliably determine compliance, security, and value of submitted badges.
    Section 4.1 grants the central database final review authority without specifying the review criteria, who performs reviews, or how errors or fraud in the review process are handled.
  • domain assumption NFTs provide absolute uniqueness and irreplicability.
    Section 2.3 states each NFT is unique and cannot be replicated or taken away; this is an oversimplified claim about NFTs, which in practice can be duplicated as files and whose uniqueness is only guaranteed within a particular contract or database.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Immutable Digital Recognition via Blockchain." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UST7NY7Q

@misc{pith2026250818750,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Immutable Digital Recognition via Blockchain},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UST7NY7Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.18750}
}
read the original abstract

The development of blockchain technology has significantly enhanced the security and transparency of personal information and transaction records. Concurrent with the advancement of blockchain technology and the emergence of the digital currency ecosystem, the internet has evolved from a paradigm dominated by information flow to one driven by value flow. Consequently, the concept of token has gained widespread dissemination, and the electronic token under investigation in this thesis is a development of this concept. The application of electronic tokens has become pervasive with the development of the internet, but the functionality of these tokens is often limited, and issues related to trust remain significant challenges. This study proposes innovative solutions to address the deficiencies in traditional electronic token systems, including the issuance of tokens, the heterogeneity of issuance standards, and the lack of democracy. The solutions are based on distributed storage, anti-tampering mechanisms, consensus protocols, and transparent, traceable storage. Additionally, the study employs NFTs, smart contracts, and RSA blind signatures, among other key technologies, to construct a system based on blockchain technology. The process integrates the decentralised management and centralised operation models, aligning them with the national policy directives. The developed solution enables the full utilisation of blockchain technology's advantages while also fostering community participation. Consequently, it establishes a secure, legal, reliable, and dynamic electronic certification system.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.18750 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Traditional medal awarding process flow chart [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Decentralized distributed storage (2) Data Anti-Falsification and Anti-Tampering The blockchain’s ability to achieve its highly tamper￾resistant nature relies on two core technologies: Merkle trees and cryptographic hashing. Transaction data within each block in the blockchain is linked via Merkle trees. As shown in the figure below, a Merkle tree resembles an inverted tree. Each leaf node on the Merkle tree represe… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Mining calculation process (4)Traceable One of the key characteristics of blockchain technology is its public transparency and traceability. In a public blockchain environment, all transaction records are open to the public, and any individual has the right to query and verify such transactions. Each transaction is accompanied by a unique hash value and timestamp. This information is processed through multi-layer ha… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Smart contracts as digital arbitrators When the predefined conditions are met, the smart con￾tract automatically executes a series of predefined operational processes (such as minting NFT badges, updating ownership records, etc.) . A smart contract is a computer progra…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Electronic medal issuance flowchar 3.4 Combining Smart Contract 1) Smart Contract A smart contract is a digital, automatically executed agree￾ment deployed on a blockchain [23] . Essentially, it con￾verts traditional contract terms into automated programs en￾forced by …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Detailed explanation of the four major technologies of smart contracts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Complete workflow of the smart contract badge system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Detailed flowchart of medal certification process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Comparison of the advantages of integrated architecture systems [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    medal-suite: a software solution for creating and deploying complex clinical decision support algorithms,

    L. G. Cobuccio, V . Faivre, R. Tan, A. V onlanthen, F. Beynon, E. Barchichat, A. Fresco, Q. Girard, S. Ucak, S. Schaufelberger, et al., “medal-suite: a software solution for creating and deploying complex clinical decision support algorithms,” BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, vol. 25, p. 249, 2025

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Information security based on llm ap- proaches: A review,

    C. Gong, Z. Li, and X. Li, “Information security based on llm ap- proaches: A review,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.18215 , 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Scalm: Detecting bad practices in smart contracts through llms,

    Z. Li, X. Li, W. Li, and X. Wang, “Scalm: Detecting bad practices in smart contracts through llms,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 39, pp. 470–477, 2025

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    SoK: Security Analysis of Blockchain-based Cryptocurrency

    Z. Liu and X. Li, “Sok: Security analysis of blockchain-based cryptocur- rency,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.22156 , 2025

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Blockchain for cybersecurity: systematic literature review and classification,

    M. Liu, W. Yeoh, F. Jiang, and K.-K. R. Choo, “Blockchain for cybersecurity: systematic literature review and classification,” Journal of Computer Information Systems , vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 1182–1198, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Blockchain enabled cyber security: A comprehensive survey,

    A. Deshmukh, N. Sreenath, A. K. Tyagi, and U. V . E. Abhichandan, “Blockchain enabled cyber security: A comprehensive survey,” in 2022 International Conference on Computer Communication and Informatics (ICCCI), pp. 1–6, IEEE, 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Blockchain adoption: A value driver perspective,

    J. Angelis and E. R. Da Silva, “Blockchain adoption: A value driver perspective,” Business horizons, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 307–314, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    An overview of smart contract and use cases in blockchain technology,

    B. K. Mohanta, S. S. Panda, and D. Jena, “An overview of smart contract and use cases in blockchain technology,” in 2018 9th international conference on computing, communication and networking technologies (ICCCNT), pp. 1–4, IEEE, 2018

    work page 2018

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Smart contract development: Challenges and opportunities,

    W. Zou, D. Lo, P. S. Kochhar, X.-B. D. Le, X. Xia, Y . Feng, Z. Chen, and B. Xu, “Smart contract development: Challenges and opportunities,” IEEE transactions on software engineering , vol. 47, no. 10, pp. 2084– 2106, 2019

  2. [10]

    Large-scale election based on blockchain,

    B. Wang, J. Sun, Y . He, D. Pang, and N. Lu, “Large-scale election based on blockchain,” Procedia Computer Science , vol. 129, pp. 234– 237, 2018

    2018

  3. [11]

    The application of blockchain technology in e-government in china,

    H. Hou, “The application of blockchain technology in e-government in china,” in 2017 26th international conference on computer communica- tion and networks (ICCCN) , pp. 1–4, IEEE, 2017

    2017

  4. [12]

    On discovering vulnerabilities in android applications,

    X. Li, L. Yu, and X. Luo, “On discovering vulnerabilities in android applications,” in Mobile Security and Privacy , pp. 155–166, Elsevier, 2017

    2017

  5. [13]

    Blockchain technology overview,

    D. Yaga, P. Mell, N. Roby, and K. Scarfone, “Blockchain technology overview,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.11078 , 2019

    1906 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Clue: towards discovering locked cryptocurrencies in ethereum,

    X. Li, T. Chen, X. Luo, and C. Wang, “Clue: towards discovering locked cryptocurrencies in ethereum,” in Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing , pp. 1584–1587, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    Distributed secure storage scheme based on sharding blockchain,

    J. Wang, H. Chenchen, Y . Xiaofeng, R. Yongjun, and S. Sherratt, “Distributed secure storage scheme based on sharding blockchain,” Computers, Materials & Continua, vol. 70, no. 3, pp. 4485–4502, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Research on anti-tampering technology of procurement system based on blockchain,

    Z. Fei, “Research on anti-tampering technology of procurement system based on blockchain,” in 2024 7th International Conference on Infor- mation Communication and Signal Processing (ICICSP) , pp. 290–294, IEEE, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    A comprehensive review of blockchain consensus mechanisms,

    B. Lashkari and P. Musilek, “A comprehensive review of blockchain consensus mechanisms,” IEEE access, vol. 9, pp. 43620–43652, 2021

    2021

  10. [18]

    Judmayer, N

    A. Judmayer, N. Stifter, K. Krombholz, and E. Weippl, Blocks and chains: introduction to bitcoin, cryptocurrencies, and their consensus mechanisms. Springer Nature, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Blockchain for supply chain traceability: Business requirements and critical success factors,

    G. M. Hastig and M. S. Sodhi, “Blockchain for supply chain traceability: Business requirements and critical success factors,” Production and Operations Management, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 935–954, 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    Non-fungible token (nft): Overview, evaluation, opportunities and challenges,

    Q. Wang, R. Li, Q. Wang, and S. Chen, “Non-fungible token (nft): Overview, evaluation, opportunities and challenges,” arXiv preprint- barXiv:2105.07447, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    From nft 1.0 to nft 2.0: A review of the evolution of non-fungible tokens,

    B. Guidi and A. Michienzi, “From nft 1.0 to nft 2.0: A review of the evolution of non-fungible tokens,” Future Internet, vol. 15, no. 6, p. 189, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Natlm: Detecting defects in nft smart contracts leveraging llm,

    Y . Niu, X. Li, and W. Li, “Natlm: Detecting defects in nft smart contracts leveraging llm,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.01351 , 2025

    2025

  15. [23]

    Smart contracts in the real world: A statistical exploration of external data dependencies,

    Y . Wang, X. Li, S. Ye, L. Xie, and J. Xing, “Smart contracts in the real world: A statistical exploration of external data dependencies,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.13253, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Hybrid analysis of smart contracts and malicious behaviors in ethereum,

    X. Li et al., “Hybrid analysis of smart contracts and malicious behaviors in ethereum,” 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Enhancing smart contract vul- nerability detection in dapps leveraging fine-tuned llm,

    J. Bu, W. Li, Z. Li, Z. Zhang, and X. Li, “Enhancing smart contract vul- nerability detection in dapps leveraging fine-tuned llm,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.05006, 2025

    2025

  18. [26]

    Characterizing erasable accounts in ethereum,

    X. Li, T. Chen, X. Luo, and J. Yu, “Characterizing erasable accounts in ethereum,” in International Conference on Information Security , pp. 352–371, Springer, 2020

    2020

  19. [27]

    Exploring vulnerabilities and concerns in solana smart contracts,

    X. Wu, J. Xing, and X. Li, “Exploring vulnerabilities and concerns in solana smart contracts,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.07419 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    An overview on smart contracts: Challenges, advances and platforms,

    Z. Zheng, S. Xie, H.-N. Dai, W. Chen, X. Chen, J. Weng, and M. Imran, “An overview on smart contracts: Challenges, advances and platforms,” Future Generation Computer Systems , vol. 105, pp. 475–491, 2020

    2020

  21. [29]

    A survey of applica- tion research based on blockchain smart contract,

    S.-Y . Lin, L. Zhang, J. Li, L.-l. Ji, and Y . Sun, “A survey of applica- tion research based on blockchain smart contract,” Wireless Networks, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 635–690, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    Automated smart contract summa- rization via llms,

    Y . Mao, X. Li, Z. Li, and W. Li, “Automated smart contract summa- rization via llms,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.04863 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Malicious code detection in smart contracts via opcode vectorization,

    H. Zou, Z. Li, and X. Li, “Malicious code detection in smart contracts via opcode vectorization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.12720 , 2025

    2025

  24. [32]

    Smartbugbert: Bert-enhanced vulnerability detection for smart contract bytecode,

    J. Bu, W. Li, Z. Li, Z. Zhang, and X. Li, “Smartbugbert: Bert-enhanced vulnerability detection for smart contract bytecode,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.05002, 2025

    2025

  25. [33]

    Authros: Secure data sharing among robot operating systems based on ethereum,

    S. Zhang, W. Li, X. Li, and B. Liu, “Authros: Secure data sharing among robot operating systems based on ethereum,” in 2022 IEEE 22nd International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security (QRS), pp. 147–156, IEEE, 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    Blockchain security based on cryptogra- phy: a review,

    W. Zhou, D. Lyu, and X. Li, “Blockchain security based on cryptogra- phy: a review,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.01280 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Blockchain application in metaverse: A review,

    B. Jin, H. Kuang, and X. Li, “Blockchain application in metaverse: A review,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.11730 , 2025

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.