Would you dare to sign a contract that's nothing but garbled text?

No one would do that in real life, but in the crypto world, this happens every day. You open your wallet, and a bunch of incomprehensible hexadecimal characters pops up on the screen, labeled "Contract Interaction." You hesitate for two seconds, but still click confirm—it might be a transfer, or you might be authorizing someone to use your assets without limits, or even handing over control of your wallet entirely.

This is what insiders often call "blind signing." It's not a bug in some obscure wallet, but a ticking time bomb buried in the entire blockchain industry.

**Why does blind signing happen?**

Calling a smart contract is essentially a string of compressed binary code. The wallet gets this code and just throws it at you—a mess of random characters. Regular users have no idea what they're actually authorizing.

The result? Phishing attacks, fake authorizations, and malicious contracts have already siphoned off billions of dollars from users. Many people still don't know how their money disappeared.

**Different blockchains, different issues**

Take Ethereum, for example. It's the pioneer of smart contracts, but transaction data actually consists of only two parts: the function selector (first 4 bytes) and the parameter list (split into 32-byte segments). Want to translate these bytes into plain language? You need the ABI (Application Binary Interface). The problem is, ABI isn't a standard on-chain data storage; wallets either maintain their own database or rely on third-party services. When dealing with new contracts or niche projects, users are still faced with unreadable gibberish.

Solana and ICP follow different logic. Solana's transaction structure is more flexible, but also harder to parse; ICP has made some design improvements, but its ecosystem tools are still immature.

No matter the chain, the core issue is the same: there's a huge gap between technical implementation and user understanding.