Smart Contract Intent & Vulnerability Dataset

Evidence record

Maintainer-published Web3 Software Engineering Lab dataset card describing more than 90,000 Ethereum and BSC contracts in a MySQL data dump, token intent labels, security-vulnerability labels, and label definitions. Fee, Reflection, Reward, Rebase and Mint encode token features or controls; their presence cannot alone establish fraud. ContractLens reports selecting a filtered, BSC-only 32,141-contract subset of an earlier smart-contract intent corpus. The card is evidence for label meanings and dataset availability, not an independent reproduction of ContractLens or validation of every annotation.

Read the original source ↗

Claim-level citations (2)

• supportsContractLens finds useful internal model signals for malicious smart-contract screening: The authors report a filtered BNB Smart Chain set of 32,141 contracts with 21,166 contracts labeled positive for at least one of ten risky token-code intents and 10,975 labeled benign. The intent labels identify code-level capabilities rather than established malicious use or on-chain victimization. Creator- or source-identical contracts are assigned to the same 64/16/20 training, validation or test group.

  Dataset card, Smart Contract Intent Annotations, label definitions and Intended Use

• supportsContractLens finds useful internal model signals for malicious smart-contract screening: The underlying Web3 Software Engineering Lab dataset defines Reflection as token-tax redistribution to holders, Reward as distributions intended to incentivize participation, Rebase as algorithmic supply adjustments, and Mint as token creation; it also defines features such as blacklists, sell limits and trading controls. These are categorized capabilities, so a model hit on an annotated intent is not by itself a finding of fraud, loss, or exploitable vulnerability.

  Dataset card, Smart Contract Intent Annotations table: Reflection, Reward, Rebase, Mint, Blacklist, MaxSell and DisableTrading