Connect with us

Published

on

Web3 has a metadata problem, and it’s not going away

Opinion by: Casey Ford, PhD, researcher at Nym Technologies

Web3 rolled in on the wave of decentralization. Decentralized applications (DApps) grew by 74% in 2024 and individual wallets by 485%, with total value locked (TVL) in decentralized finance (DeFi) closing at a near-record high of $214 billion. The industry is also, however, heading straight for a state of capture if it does not wake up. 

As Elon Musk has teased of placing the US Treasury on blockchain, however poorly thought out, the tides are turning as crypto is deregulated. But when they do, is Web3 ready to “protect [user] data,” as Musk surrogates pledge? If not, we’re all on the brink of a global data security crisis.

The crisis boils down to a vulnerability at the heart of the digital world: the metadata surveillance of all existing networks, even the decentralized ones of Web3. AI technologies are now at the foundation of surveillance systems and serve as accelerants. Anonymity networks offer a way out of this state of capture. But this must begin with metadata protections across the board.

Metadata is the new frontier of surveillance

Metadata is the overlooked raw material of AI surveillance. Compared to payload data, metadata is lightweight and thus easy to process en masse. Here, AI systems excel best. Aggregated metadata can reveal much more than encrypted contents: patterns of behaviors, networks of contacts, personal desires and, ultimately, predictability. And legally, it is unprotected in the way end-to-end (E2E) encrypted communications are now in some regions. 

While metadata is a part of all digital assets, the metadata that leaks from E2E encrypted traffic exposes us and what we do: IPs, timing signatures, packet sizes, encryption formats and even wallet specifications. All of this is fully legible to adversaries surveilling a network. Blockchain transactions are no exception.

From piles of digital junk can emerge a goldmine of detailed records of everything we do. Metadata is our digital unconscious, and it is up for grabs for whatever machines can harvest it for profit.

The limits of blockchain

Protecting the metadata of transactions was an afterthought of blockchain technology. Crypto does not offer anonymity despite the reactionary association of the industry with illicit trade. It offers pseudonymity, the ability to hold tokens in a wallet with a chosen name. 

Recent: How to tokenize real-world assets on Bitcoin

Harry Halpin and Ania Piotrowska have diagnosed the situation:

“[T]he public nature of Bitcoin’s ledger of transactions […] means anyone can observe the flow of coins. [P]seudonymous addresses do not provide any meaningful level of anonymity, since anyone can harvest the counterparty addresses of any given transaction and reconstruct the chain of transactions.”

As all chain transactions are public, anyone running a full node can have a panoptic view of chain activity. Further, metadata like IP addresses attached to pseudonymous wallets can be used to identify people’s locations and identities if tracking technologies are sophisticated enough. 

This is the core problem of metadata surveillance in blockchain economics: Surveillance systems can effectively de-anonymize our financial traffic by any capable party.

Knowledge is also an insecurity

Knowledge is not just power, as the adage goes. It’s also the basis on which we are exploited and disempowered. There are at least three general metadata risks across Web3.

  • Fraud: Financial insecurity and surveillance are intrinsically linked. The most serious hacks, thefts or scams depend on accumulated knowledge about a target: their assets, transaction histories and who they are. DappRadar estimates a $1.3-billion loss due to “hacks and exploits” like phishing attacks in 2024 alone. 

  • Leaks: The wallets that permit access to decentralized tokenomics rely on leaky centralized infrastructures. Studies of DApps and wallets have shown the prevalence of IP leaks: “The existing wallet infrastructure is not in favor of users’ privacy. Websites abuse wallets to fingerprint users online, and DApps and wallets leak the user’s wallet address to third parties.” Pseudonymity is pointless if people’s identities and patterns of transactions can be easily revealed through metadata.

  • Chain consensus: Chain consensus is a potential point of attack. One example is a recent initiative by Celestia to add an anonymity layer to obscure the metadata of validators against particular attacks seeking to disrupt chain consensus in Celestia’s Data Availability Sampling (DAS) process.

Securing Web3 through anonymity

As Web3 continues to grow, so does the amount of metadata about people’s activities being offered up to newly empowered surveillance systems. 

Beyond VPNs

Virtual private network (VPN) technology is decades old at this point. The lack of advancement is shocking, with most VPNs remaining in the same centralized and proprietary infrastructures. Networks like Tor and Dandelion stepped in as decentralized solutions. Yet they are still vulnerable to surveillance by global adversaries capable of “timing analysis” via the control of entry and exit nodes. Even more advanced tools are needed.

Noise networks

All surveillance looks for patterns in a network full of noise. By further obscuring patterns of communication and de-linking metadata like IPs from metadata generated by traffic, the possible attack vectors can be significantly reduced, and metadata patterns can be scrambled into nonsense.

Anonymizing networks have emerged to anonymize sensitive traffic like communications or crypto transactions via noise: cover traffic, timing obfuscations and data mixing. In the same spirit, other VPNs like Mullvad have introduced programs like DAITA (Defense Against AI-guided Traffic Analysis), which seeks to add “distortion” to its VPN network. 

Scrambling the codes

Whether it’s defending people against the assassinations in tomorrow’s drone wars or securing their onchain transactions, new anonymity networks are needed to scramble the codes of what makes all of us targetable: the metadata our online lives leave in their wake.

The state of capture is already here. Machine learning is feeding off our data. Instead of leaving people’s data there unprotected, Web3 and anonymity systems can make sure that what ends up in the teeth of AI is effectively garbage.

Opinion by: Casey Ford, PhD, researcher at Nym Technologies.

This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.

Continue Reading

Politics

5 countries where crypto is (surprisingly) tax-free in 2025

Published

on

By

5 countries where crypto is (surprisingly) tax-free in 2025

5 countries where crypto is (surprisingly) tax-free in 2025

Looking to live tax-free with crypto in 2025? These five countries, including the Cayman Islands, UAE and Germany, still offer legal, zero-tax treatment for cryptocurrencies.

Continue Reading

Politics

Children with special needs will ‘always’ have ‘legal right’ to support, education secretary says

Published

on

By

Children with special needs will 'always' have 'legal right' to support, education secretary says

The education secretary has said children with special needs will “always” have a legal right to additional support as she sought to quell a looming row over potential cuts.

The government is facing a potential repeat of the debacle over welfare reform due to suggestions it could scrap tailored plans for children and young people with special needs in the classroom.

Politics latest: Minister says ‘those with broadest shoulders should pay more tax’

Speaking in the Commons on Monday, Bridget Phillipson failed to rule out abolishing education, health and care plans (EHCPs) – legally-binding plans to ensure children and young people receive bespoke support in either mainstream or specialist schools.

Laura Trott, the shadow education secretary, said parents’ anxiety was “through the roof” following reports over the weekend that EHCPs could be scrapped.

She said parents “need and deserve answers” and asked: “Can she confirm that no parent or child will have their right to support reduced, replaced or removed as a result of her planned changes?”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Sophy’s thought on whether to scrap EHCPs

Ms Phillipson said SEND provision was a “serious and complex area” and that the government’s plans would be set out in a white paper that would be published later in the year.

More on Education

“I would say to all parents of children with SEND, there is no responsibility I take more seriously than our responsibility to some of the most vulnerable children in our country,” she said.

“We will ensure, as a government, that children get better access to more support, strengthened support, with a much sharper focus on early intervention.”

ECHPs are drawn up by local councils and are available to children and young people aged up to 25 who need more support than is provided by the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) budget.

They identify educational, health and social needs and set out the additional support to meet those needs.

In total, there were 638,745 EHCPs in place in January 2025 – up 10.8% on the same point last year.

‘Rebel ready’

One Labour MP said they were concerned the government risked making the “same mistakes” over ECHPs as it did with the row over welfare, when it was eventually forced into a humiliating climbdown in the face of opposition by Labour MPs.

“The political risk is much higher even than with welfare, and I’m worried it’s being driven by a need to save money which it shouldn’t be,” they told Sky News.

“Some colleagues are rebel ready.”

The MP said the government should be “charting a transition from where we are now to where we need to be”, adding: “That may well be a future without ECHPs, because there is mainstream capacity – but that cannot be a removal of current provision.”

Later in the debate, Ms Phillipson said children with special educational needs and disabilities would “always” have a “legal right” to additional support as she accused a Conservative MP of attempting to “scare” parents.

“The guiding principle of any reform to the SEND system that we will set out will be about better support for children, strengthened support for children and improved support for children, both inside and outside of special schools,” she said.

Read more:
Government to ban ‘appalling’ non-disclosure agreements
Government declines to rule out wealth tax

“Improved inclusivity in mainstream schools, more specialist provision in mainstream schools, and absolutely drawing on the expertise of the specialist sector in creating the places where we need them, there will always be a legal right … to the additional support… that children with SEND need.”

Her words were echoed by schools minister Catherine McKinnell, who also did not rule out changing ECHPs.

She told the Politics Hub With Sophy Ridge that the government was “focused on reforming the whole system”.

“Children and families have been left in a system where they’ve had to fight for their child’s education, and that has to change,” she said.

She added that EHCPs have not necessarily “fixed the situation” for some children – but for others it’s “really important”.

Continue Reading

Politics

Government to ban ‘appalling’ non-disclosure agreements that silence victims of abuse at work

Published

on

By

Government to ban 'appalling' non-disclosure agreements that silence victims of abuse at work

Victims will no longer have to “suffer in silence”, the government has said, as it pledges to ban non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) designed to silence staff who’ve suffered harassment or discrimination.

Accusers of Harvey Weinstein, the former film producer and convicted sex offender, are among many in recent years who had to breach such agreements in order to speak out.

Labour has suggested an extra section in the Employment Rights Bill that would void NDAs that are intended to stop employees going public about harassment or discrimination.

The government said this would allow victims to come forward about their situation rather than remain “stuck in unwanted situations, through fear or desperation”.

Zelda Perkins, former assistant to Harvey Weinstein, led the calls for wrongful NDAs to be banned. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Zelda Perkins, former assistant to Harvey Weinstein, led the calls for wrongful NDAs to be banned. Pic: Reuters

Zelda Perkins, Weinstein’s former assistant and founder of Can’t Buy My Silence UK, said the changes would mark a “huge milestone” in combatting the “abuse of power”.

She added: “This victory belongs to the people who broke their NDAs, who risked everything to speak the truth when they were told they couldn’t. Without their courage, none of this would be happening.”

Deputy prime minister Angela Rayner said the government had “heard the calls from victims of harassment and discrimination” and was taking action to prevent people from having to “suffer in silence”.

More from UK

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Weinstein found guilty of sex crime in retrial

An NDA is a broad term that describes any agreement that restricts what a signatory can say about something and was originally intended to protect commercially sensitive information.

Currently, a business can take an employee to court and seek compensation if they think a NDA has been broken – even if that person is a victim or witness of harassment or discrimination.

“Many high profile cases” have revealed NDAs are being manipulated to prevent people “speaking out about horrific experiences in the workplace”, the government said.

Announcing the amendments, employment minister Justin Madders said: “The misuse of NDAs to silence victims of harassment or discrimination is an appalling practice that this government has been determined to end.”

The bill is currently in the House of Lords, where it will be debated on 14 July, before going on to be discussed by MPs as well.

Continue Reading

Trending