OpenAI’s latest paper exposes the risks of AI in smart contracts

ambcryptoPublished on 2026-02-19Last updated on 2026-02-19

Abstract

OpenAI's latest research paper highlights the dual role of AI in smart contract security, both as a tool for identifying vulnerabilities and as a potential threat capable of exploiting them. As smart contracts now manage over $400 billion in assets, their immutable nature makes security critical. To evaluate AI's capabilities, researchers developed EVMbench, a benchmark using 120 real vulnerabilities from 40 blockchain projects. The study found that frontier AI agents can successfully discover and exploit vulnerabilities end-to-end, with exploit success rates jumping from 31.9% to 72.2% in just six months. However, a recent incident involving Claude Opus 4.6 demonstrated significant risks when AI-generated code contained critical errors, leading to $1.78 million in losses. EVMbench has limitations, including a limited dataset, false positives, and an inability to fully replicate real-world conditions like cross-chain activity. The paper underscores the need for responsible AI development as smart contracts increasingly become tools for both innovation and cybercrime.

As smart contracts evolve from small experiments into major financial systems managing over $400 billion in assets, security has become increasingly critical.

Unlike traditional software, most blockchain programs cannot be changed after deployment, meaning even minor coding errors can cause permanent financial losses.

To evaluate how artificial intelligence performs in this high-risk environment, researchers from OpenAI, Paradigm, and OtterSec developed EVMbench.

Instead of simple test challenges, it uses 120 real vulnerabilities from 40 blockchain projects, making the evaluation closer to real-world conditions.

Remarking on which, the OpenAI blog post noted,

“We evaluate a range of frontier agents and find that they are capable of discovering and exploiting vulnerabilities end-to-end against live blockchain instances.”

It further added,

“We release code, tasks, and tooling to support continued measurement of these capabilities and future work on security.”

Is AI actually reshaping smart contract security?

While AI greatly improves auditing and bug fixing, it can also exploit system weaknesses. To resolve this, EVMbench helps researchers track these risks.

It also guides responsible AI development for high-value financial systems.

That being said, EVMbench tests AI agents in three stages.

Each stage represents a different level of technical difficulty, reflecting growing security responsibility.

The community appreciates this effort

Appreciating this move, an X user account noted,

“This is a watershed moment for smart contract security. The jump from 31.9% to 72.2% exploit success in just 6 months shows AI agents aren’t just getting better at reading code—they’re mastering the full attack chain.”

Echoing similar sentiments, another user added,

“The 6× jump in exploit success is wild progress, but kinda worrying how fast offensive skills are scaling.”

Recent incident that sent shockwaves

Yet, despite such optimism, something unreal happened soon after OpenAI launched EVMbench. An exploit involving Claude Opus 4.6 raised serious concerns about the risks of “vibe-coded” smart contracts.

In this case, the AI helped write vulnerable Solidity code that incorrectly set the price of the cbETH asset at $1.12 instead of its real value of around $2,200, triggering liquidations and causing losses of nearly $1.78 million.

This shows that trusting AI with critical financial logic without careful human review can turn small mistakes into major losses.

Limitations remain

EVMbench has clear limitations. It includes only 120 curated vulnerabilities and cannot evaluate newly discovered issues.

Detect Mode also produces false positives. While the small number of Patch and Exploit tasks reflects the heavy manual effort needed to create them.

In addition, the sandboxed environment fails to fully represent real-world conditions such as cross-chain activity, timing complexities, and long-term network history.

Needless to say, as blockchain adoption accelerates, its misuse is evolving just as quickly.

Recently, research by Group-IB also showed that the DeadLock ransomware is using Polygon smart contracts to conceal server infrastructure and evade detection.

Together, these developments signal a troubling shift where smart contracts, originally designed to enhance transparency and trust, are increasingly being repurposed as tools for cybercrime.


Final Summary

  • Tools like EVMbench help researchers measure AI capabilities in realistic security settings.
  • Limited datasets and controlled environments still fail to capture real-world blockchain complexity.

Related Questions

QWhat is EVMbench and what is its purpose in the context of AI and smart contracts?

AEVMbench is a tool developed by researchers from OpenAI, Paradigm, and OtterSec to evaluate how artificial intelligence performs in the high-risk environment of smart contracts. It uses 120 real vulnerabilities from 40 blockchain projects to test AI agents, making the evaluation closer to real-world conditions. Its purpose is to help researchers track the risks of AI in smart contract security and guide responsible AI development for high-value financial systems.

QAccording to the article, what are the potential dual roles of AI in smart contract security?

AThe article states that AI can both greatly improve auditing and bug fixing in smart contracts, but it can also be used to exploit system weaknesses. This dual capability means AI can be a tool for both enhancing security and for conducting attacks.

QWhat was the concerning incident mentioned that involved the AI model Claude Opus 4.6?

AAn exploit involving Claude Opus 4.6 raised serious concerns. The AI helped write vulnerable Solidity code that incorrectly set the price of the cbETH asset at $1.12 instead of its real value of around $2,200. This error triggered liquidations and caused financial losses of nearly $1.78 million, demonstrating the risks of using AI for critical financial logic without careful human review.

QWhat are some of the limitations of the EVMbench tool as outlined in the article?

AEVMbench has several limitations: it includes only 120 curated vulnerabilities and cannot evaluate newly discovered issues; its Detect Mode can produce false positives; the small number of Patch and Exploit tasks reflects the heavy manual effort required to create them; and its sandboxed environment fails to fully represent real-world conditions like cross-chain activity, timing complexities, and long-term network history.

QHow did the community react to the release of EVMbench, as per the social media comments cited?

AThe community reaction, as cited from social media (X), was a mix of appreciation and concern. One user called it a 'watershed moment for smart contract security,' highlighting a jump in AI exploit success rates from 31.9% to 72.2% in six months. Another user expressed that the rapid progress was 'wild' but also 'kinda worrying,' noting how fast offensive AI skills are scaling.

Related Reads

Trading

Spot
Futures

Hot Articles

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of S (S) are presented below.

活动图片