SuperEx Educational Series: Understanding How Many Layers Are There Between a User’s Wallet and the Underlying Blockchain (III)
#SuperEx #EducationalSeries #Blockchain
This topic has reached its third article, and we still have not reduced it to “the wallet sends a transaction to the blockchain, and that is it.”
The reason is simple: a technical process can be compressed into one button, but its risks do not disappear merely because the button looks polished.
The first two articles examined which layers a transaction crosses and what powers those layers hold. This time, we bring the question back to the user:
- What is the difference between connecting a wallet, signing a message, granting approval, and sending a transaction?
- When a transaction is stuck, should the user keep waiting or submit another one?
Why can assets remain at risk even after the blockchain reports success?
These are not technical details relevant only to developers. They form the decision framework that actually protects assets whenever a user clicks “Confirm.”
Connection, Signature, Approval, and Transaction Are Not the Same Action
Many wallet interfaces present several very similar-looking buttons in sequence: Connect, Sign, Approve, and Confirm.
To an ordinary user, they all seem to mean: “Click one more time to continue.”
At the underlying level, these four actions have completely different consequences.
Connecting a Wallet Mainly Exposes Account Information
Connecting a wallet generally means allowing a website to view the public address and learn which network the wallet is using.
A simple wallet connection should not automatically transfer assets or give the DApp access to the private key.
Connection is not entirely risk-free.
Once the website knows the address, it can inspect public balances, transaction history, NFTs, and protocol positions, linking several actions to the same identity.
Wallet connection primarily affects privacy and account exposure rather than direct asset authority.
Signing Means Agreeing to a Specific Set of Data
A signature has broader implications than a connection.
A user may sign a login message, order, governance vote, token permission, or off-chain instruction that a third party can submit later.
A signature does not necessarily consume gas immediately, nor does it always appear on a block explorer at once.
But “not yet on-chain” does not mean “no authority was granted.”
ERC-2612’s Permit mechanism is a typical example. A user can sign a message that modifies token allowance, and another address may later submit that signature on-chain.
When a wallet says “This signature costs no gas,” do not automatically interpret that as “This signature carries no risk.”
“Free” describes the network fee, not the value of the permission.
Approval Allows a Contract to Use Tokens Within a Defined Scope
An ERC-20 token generally cannot be moved by another contract unless the user grants an allowance first.
For example, if Alice wants to swap 1,000 USDT on a DEX, the router contract may first ask her to approve USDT spending before executing the swap.
Under the ERC-20 standard, an approved spender can transfer tokens from the user’s address within the granted allowance.
If the allowance is exactly 1,000 USDT, the scope is relatively clear.
If the allowance is effectively unlimited, the contract may retain permission to use additional USDT long after the current transaction ends.
This does not mean unlimited approval is always malicious. Many DApps use it to avoid repeated approval transactions and gas costs.
The issue is that convenience converts a one-time action into persistent authority.
If the approved contract contains a vulnerability, is upgraded to malicious logic, or has its administrative authority compromised, that persistent allowance can become a path to asset loss.
Sending a Transaction Requests a Blockchain State Change
A transaction generally contains a destination, value, call data, nonce, fee parameters, and a signature.
Once executed, it may transfer assets, modify allowances, call contracts, or perform several batched actions.
- These four actions can be understood as follows:
- Connect: allow the website to see your public account;
- Sign: prove agreement to a set of data;
- Approve: allow a contract to use specified assets in the future;
- Transact: ask the blockchain to execute a state change.
The danger is that an interface may make all four actions look nearly identical.
Before Signing, Users Need to Check Four Boundaries, Not Every Byte
Expecting ordinary users to interpret every byte of transaction data is unrealistic.
Good security design should not transfer all responsibility to the user and respond after an incident with, “But you clicked Confirm.”
A more practical method is to check four boundaries before signing.
First Is the Network Boundary: On Which Chain Will It Apply?
The same wallet address can exist across several EVM networks, but its assets, nonces, and contracts are separate on each chain.
A contract address may belong to a known protocol on Ethereum while representing completely different code on another network.
Users should therefore verify the network as well as the address.
If a wallet unexpectedly requests a switch to an unfamiliar network, or the signed message contains an unexpected chain ID, the user should stop.
Second Is the Counterparty Boundary: Who Receives the Authority?
- For a transfer, check the recipient.
- For a contract interaction, check the target contract.
- For a token approval, check the spender, meaning the address receiving permission to use the assets.
The DApp interface shows a project name, while the wallet signs authority toward an address. Names can be copied and logos can be imitated. The address is the actual destination of the permission.
This does not mean users must memorize a 42-character address. A more practical approach is to enter through official sources, compare the beginning and end of the address, and use labels supplied by wallets, explorers, and security databases.
Third Is the Authority Boundary: What Can the Other Party Actually Do?
A request may transfer 10 USDT once, or it may authorize a contract to control all available USDT in the future.
Both may require only one confirmation, yet their risk duration is completely different.
At minimum, users should examine the asset type, approved amount, permission recipient, and expiration.
For smart accounts, users should also check whether a new owner, session key, module, or recovery authority is being added. Such actions may not transfer assets immediately, but they can change who is able to initiate transactions later.
Fourth Is the Economic Boundary: What Is the Worst Acceptable Outcome?
- A swap should be reviewed for input amount, expected output, minimum output, and slippage.
- Staking or lending actions should be checked for locked assets, withdrawal conditions, liquidation risk, and the receipt tokens being issued.
The valuable question before signing is not merely, “Will this transaction succeed?” It is: “If this transaction succeeds in the least favorable way still permitted by its parameters, what result will I receive?”
A transaction can be technically successful while being economically terrible.
When supporting Clear Signing work in 2026, the Ethereum Foundation identified blind signing as a major structural risk. The core goal is to help users understand the actual effect of an approval rather than display unreadable data.
When a Transaction Gets Stuck, First Identify Which Layer It Reached
When a wallet shows “Pending” for too long, the most common human response is to click again.
Sometimes that works. More often, it upgrades one pending transaction into a queue of pending transactions.
A more reliable first step is to locate the transaction hash.
No Transaction Hash: It May Not Have Been Broadcast
If the wallet has no transaction hash and only shows “Submitting,” the request may still be stuck at the DApp, wallet, bundler, or RPC layer.
Possible causes include an incomplete signature, network interruption, RPC rejection, Paymaster sponsorship failure, or a smart-account UserOperation that has not been accepted by a bundler.
Repeating the action may create another signing request without resolving the original issue.
A Hash Exists, but Explorers Cannot Find It
A wallet can calculate a transaction hash locally from the signed transaction, so the existence of a hash does not guarantee broad network propagation.
If several independent explorers or RPC providers cannot find it, broadcasting may have failed, or one node may have briefly accepted and then dropped it.
The Explorer Shows Pending
This means the transaction has entered at least some nodes’ pending pools but has not yet been included.
Common causes include network congestion, fees that are too low, and an earlier nonce that remains unresolved.
Transactions from one account must execute in nonce order. If nonce 10 remains pending, nonce 11 generally cannot bypass it even if it offers a higher fee.
A pending transaction normally remains in that state until a proposer includes it, another transaction with the same nonce replaces it, or nodes drop it from their pools.
A wallet’s “Speed Up” function usually does not pressure the original transaction. It submits a replacement with the same nonce and a higher fee.
“Cancel” does not delete the original transaction from the entire network. The wallet generally submits another transaction with the same nonce, often sending zero value to the user’s own address, hoping it is included first and invalidates the original.
Speeding up and canceling are therefore races. If the original transaction enters a block first, it will still execute.
Included in a Block but Marked Failed
This means the network executed the transaction, but the contract call reverted.
Possible causes include slippage limits, insufficient balance, inadequate allowance, transaction expiration, or changed contract conditions.
A failed transaction does not complete its intended state changes, but gas consumed during execution is generally still charged.
Resubmitting the same transaction may not help. The revert reason should be understood first, along with any changes to market conditions or parameters.
Successful On-Chain, but the Wallet Has Not Updated
If an explorer shows success and the correct address’s on-chain balance has changed while the wallet remains outdated, the problem usually lies in the read layer.
Switching RPC providers, refreshing the token list, reloading the application, or waiting for indexer synchronization may be more appropriate than sending another transaction.
The blockchain does not feel psychological pressure from repeated page refreshes. Refreshing can update an interface, but it cannot accelerate consensus.
Permissions May Remain After a Successful Transaction
Many users treat transaction success as the end of risk.
For a simple transfer, that assumption is broadly correct. The asset has been sent and the action is complete.
For approvals, permits, smart-account modules, and session keys, success may be the beginning of long-term authority.
Suppose Alice grants a DEX router unlimited allowance in order to swap 100 USDT.After the swap completes, that particular trade is over, but the allowance may remain.
The next time she uses the same contract, she may not need another approval. That is the usability benefit.
The corresponding cost is that the approved contract may continue using the relevant tokens within the remaining allowance.
Users should distinguish transaction state from permission state.
- Transaction state asks: “Did the previous action complete?”
- Permission state asks: “Who can still do what with my assets?”
This is why periodic review of token approvals is useful, particularly after connecting to unfamiliar DApps, joining short-term campaigns, or using protocols that are no longer maintained.
Revoking every approval is not cost-free. Each revocation and future reapproval may require gas.
- A more practical approach is to separate permissions by risk:
- Minimize persistent approvals on high-value primary wallets;
- Use separate addresses for short-term campaigns;
- Give unfamiliar contracts only the required allowance;
- Periodically review even frequently used, trusted protocols;
- Revoke permissions that are no longer needed.
Smart accounts expand this issue.
- A session key may be allowed to trade automatically for seven days.
- A module may execute batched operations.
- A recovery guardian may replace an account owner under specified conditions.
These designs can significantly improve usability and recoverability, but users need to understand the scope, expiration, per-action limit, and revocation method.
The future of wallet security is not merely protecting one permanent private key. It is managing multiple permissions with different purposes, durations, and limits.
A Practical Case: What Happens During a “Free Claim”?
Suppose Alice finds an airdrop page through social media.
The page says: “Connect your wallet and claim free tokens. No gas required.”
First, Alice connects her wallet. The website learns her public address but does not yet receive direct asset authority.
Second, the page requests a signature. The wallet identifies it as structured data, but Alice sees only “Permit” and an unfamiliar address.
If Alice inspects further, she may discover that the message contains:
- The owner, which is her wallet address;
- The spender, which is the contract receiving authority;
- The value, meaning the allowance amount;
- The deadline, meaning the latest time the signature may be submitted.
Although Alice pays no gas, a third party may submit the signed permit and grant token authority to the spender.
If the value is effectively unlimited, the deadline is almost permanent, and the spender is not an official contract, the “free claim” may actually be asking Alice to surrender long-term authority over her assets.
If she rejects the signature, her assets remain unchanged.
In this case, the risk never begins with an ordinary transaction. It exists at the signature and approval layer, yet it can still lead to later asset loss.
- This is why users should not ask only: “Does this action require gas?”
- They should also ask: “What will this signature allow someone to do later?”
SuperEx Example: A Wallet Must Protect More Than Keys
SuperEx Web3 Wallet uses a non-custodial model that leaves control of seed phrases and private keys with users. Its public documentation states that the platform does not store or recover seed phrases, private keys, or wallet passwords.
This means the platform cannot sign on-chain transactions for users merely through their account login information.
Non-custody is only the beginning of wallet security.
A user may still sign a malicious message on a phishing page, transfer to the wrong address, grant unlimited allowance to a dangerous contract, or operate on the wrong network.
A wallet’s value also lies in transaction presentation, network identification, approval warnings, risk prompts, and the DApp access experience.
SuperEx’s Web3 Wallet security documentation warns users not to enter seed phrases or private keys on unknown websites and to remain cautious about airdrops, high-yield campaigns, and malicious approvals. Because on-chain actions are generally irreversible, careful review before signing is usually more effective than attempting recovery afterward. SuperEx Web3 Wallet FAQ
A mature wallet does not make every decision on the user’s behalf. It translates hidden technical data into consequences the user can understand.
Key security prevents others from impersonating you. Clear signing helps prevent you from unknowingly authorizing them.
Both are necessary.
Conclusion
All the layers between a wallet and the blockchain eventually converge on one action: authorization.
Authorization comes in different forms.
Wallet connection exposes public account information. A signature proves agreement to data. Token approval gives a contract continuing authority over assets. A transaction asks the blockchain to change state immediately.
The most useful approach is not to force oneself to read every byte, but to verify four boundaries before signing:
- Which network the action applies to;
- Which address receives authority;
- Which assets it can use, how much, and for how long;
- What the worst permitted execution outcome could be.
After submission, users should identify the transaction’s layer through its hash, nonce, block status, and execution result rather than repeating the action continuously.
After success, users should also consider whether persistent allowances, permits, session keys, or smart-account modules remain active.
A wallet protects more than a private key.It should also help users understand what authority they are granting, to whom, and for how long.
References
ERC-2612: Permit Extension for ERC-20
Ethereum Foundation: Clear Signing
Ethereum: Pending Transaction Definition
Ethereum Security and Scam Prevention
About SuperEx
As the world’s first Web3-powered cryptocurrency exchange, SuperEx remains committed to building the Web3 ecosystem through products and services including SuperEx DAO, SuperEx Web3 Wallet, Super Start, SuperEx P2P, SuperEx Stock Markets, SuperEx Copy Trading, SuperEx Earn, and SuperEx DAO Academy.
Today, SuperEx serves more than 10 million users across 166 countries and regions and supports spot and futures trading for over 1,000 crypto assets.
Click to register SuperEx
Click to download the SuperEx APP
Click to enter SuperEx CMC
Click to enter SuperEx DAO Academy — Space
Responses