Skip to content
Official MASTR logo MASTR
Menu

Reference / REFERENCE

A Web3 trust map: the chain is only one layer

A decentralised protocol can still be reached through a centralised website, RPC service and software supply chain. Map the dependencies before judging the claim.

Published 20 September 2026 · 2 min read

Reference text in English · Navigation in 7 languages

A conceptual trust map: frontend and RPC access lead toward a wallet and contract. Their operators and permissions must be evaluated separately.
A conceptual trust map: frontend and RPC access lead toward a wallet and contract. Their operators and permissions must be evaluated separately.
On this page
  1. Begin at the interface
  2. Separate observation from authorisation
  3. Inspect the programme and its control
  4. Draw the failure paths
  5. Link the layers to the evidence

Begin at the interface

The word Web3 is commonly used for applications that connect users and digital ownership to decentralised networks. It is a broad description, not a security certification. A useful review starts with the actual route a user takes: a domain resolves, a browser loads code, a wallet interprets a request and a network processes a transaction. The decentralisation of one step does not automatically describe the others. [1]

Separate observation from authorisation

An RPC service provides a way to query a node and submit transactions. A wallet can rely on a remote service for what it displays without handing that service its signing key. These are different trust relationships. An incorrect balance response, an unavailable endpoint and an unwanted signed transaction are different failure modes and should not be combined into a vague claim that a wallet was “hacked”. [2]

Inspect the programme and its control

Smart contracts execute code and maintain state on a blockchain. Their public execution model does not establish that the interface requested the intended function, that an approval has an appropriate scope or that an application’s administration is decentralised. Read the called address and operation, then identify any relevant upgrade or administrative permissions in that particular system. Do not infer those permissions merely from a project calling itself a DAO. [3]

Draw the failure paths

For a practical review, write 1 row for each dependency: domain and hosting, frontend code, RPC access, wallet, contract and administration. Identify the operator, what it can change, what evidence is independently checkable and what fails when it disappears. This is a research framework, not a verdict about a named project. It prevents a secure chain from being used as a blanket endorsement of every service built above it.

Link the layers to the evidence

A browser screenshot can support a claim about what an interface showed. A signed transaction records a requested action. Execution records show what the network processed. Preserve all relevant layers when reconstructing an incident, including the observation time. The sources below explain the components; a case-specific allegation needs its own evidence.

Sources and method

  1. Ethereum.org: what Web3 describes
  2. Ethereum.org: nodes and clients
  3. Ethereum.org: introduction to smart contracts

Continue reading

MASTR

Support independent research

The investigations, original evidence and guides here are free to read. Voluntary donations help fund the research and keep MASTR’s tools available.

Open wallet