Blind signing is the act of approving a blockchain transaction or signature request when the wallet cannot clearly display what the approval does. The user still produces a valid cryptographic signature, but the content being authorized remains opaque. In practice, the wallet often shows a generic prompt such as “Sign” or “Contract interaction,” plus a few raw fields that do not explain the real action.
Blind signing is not a special signature type. It is a UX and verification failure. The signature is valid and enforceable on-chain or off-chain, even if the user did not understand what was authorized.
Hardware wallets and browser wallets sometimes call this “blind signing” or “unrecognized contract.” Many devices require an explicit setting to allow it, because it increases risk.
Blind signing exists because wallets cannot decode everything. Blockchains are programmable, and smart contracts can define arbitrary methods with arbitrary calldata. A wallet can only present a clear, human-readable summary if it recognizes the contract, the method, and the meaning of the parameters.
When any of those elements are missing, the wallet has two choices. It can refuse the request, or it can let the user sign anyway with limited context. Many wallets choose to allow signing because refusing would break large parts of Web3, especially newer dapps, custom contracts, and rapidly changing protocols.
This tradeoff becomes sharper in three situations. First, when a contract is new or uncommon and has no known interface metadata. Second, when the request is not an on-chain transaction but an off-chain signature that a dapp later uses to trigger on-chain effects. Third, when the request bundles multiple actions so the wallet cannot summarize side effects safely.
Blind signing can refer to two related flows: signing an on-chain transaction or signing an off-chain message.
An on-chain transaction includes a recipient address, a value, a gas configuration, and an optional data field. For a simple ETH transfer, the wallet can display the destination and amount. For contract interactions, the data field contains encoded calldata.
Calldata is typically ABI-encoded, beginning with a 4-byte function selector and followed by parameters. If the wallet knows the contract ABI, it can map that selector to a function name and interpret the parameters. If it does not, the wallet cannot reliably infer the action.
In a blind signing flow, the device or wallet still signs the transaction hash. The signature authorizes the transaction exactly as encoded, not as the website UI described it. If the website UI is lying or compromised, the user may approve something entirely different than intended.
Blind signing is also common for off-chain messages, where the user signs data that is not itself a transaction. Some dapps use message signatures to log users in, to prove wallet ownership, or to authorize actions that the dapp later submits on-chain.
The risk is that a message signature can represent permission. If the wallet cannot display meaningful fields, the user may sign an authorization that grants spending rights or transfers control. MetaMask’s safety documentation covers this broader category of risky signing and approvals, including malicious permissions, in its guidance on staying safe with approvals and signatures.
The mechanism-level issue is straightforward. A signature is consent, and consent is binding. When the wallet cannot explain what the consent enables, the user is deciding based on trust in the dapp UI.
Many modern drains exploit this gap. The attacker does not need to break cryptography. They only need the user to approve a request that looks routine. A fake airdrop can request an approval or a signature that enables later spending. A fake marketplace can request an operator approval that allows NFT transfers. A compromised front-end can swap transaction parameters while showing a normal UI.
Blind signing amplifies these threats because it removes the last checkpoint. If the wallet cannot describe the action, it cannot warn on the right things, such as unlimited allowances, operator approvals, or suspicious destination contracts.
Blind signing shows up more often than users expect, especially when the workflow is not a simple transfer.
Wallets may fall back to blind signing when a dapp uses a custom contract, a new protocol version, or a method that is not widely supported by decoding libraries. It also appears when a transaction uses multicall patterns, where one transaction executes several internal calls. Even if the top-level method is known, the internal actions may be difficult to summarize.
Blind signing can also appear on L2s and sidechains where metadata coverage is weaker, or where contracts are frequently redeployed. It can appear during bridging, staking vault deposits, restaking workflows, and account abstraction operations where a signature can stand for several actions.
Clear signing is the safer opposite. Clear signing aims to show a faithful human-readable summary of what will happen, directly on the wallet, before the user approves.
Clear signing depends on structured data and decoding support. One important standard for message clarity is typed structured data signing. The EIP-712 specification defines a way to sign structured data with a domain separator, which helps wallets display fields like spender, value, deadline, and chain context rather than an unreadable blob.
For transactions, clear signing depends on decoding contract calls. Wallets and devices need method selectors, ABIs, and reliable metadata to show the real action. When that decoding is missing, the UI degrades into blind signing.
The practical takeaway is that blind signing is a signal. It tells the user, “The wallet cannot verify what this does.” That is exactly the moment a user should slow down.
Blind signing is not automatically malicious, but it should be treated as high-risk by default. The safest behavior is to avoid it unless the user fully understands the workflow and trusts the contract identity.
A useful habit is to verify the contract address and chain context independently. Reputable projects publish contract addresses on their official sites and docs. If a dapp cannot provide verifiable contract identity, blind signing becomes a poor trade.
Another habit is to minimize persistent permissions. Many drains do not require the user to sign a transfer. They require the user to grant ongoing rights. Token allowances and NFT operator approvals should be kept narrow and revoked when no longer needed.
Wallet separation reduces blast radius. A hot wallet can be used for experimentation and new dapps, while a cold wallet holds long-term assets and avoids unknown signing requests. This works because most blind signing moments happen during exploration and new interactions.
Some advanced workflows still force blind signing today. Early-stage protocols, custom governance modules, new bridge contracts, and niche DeFi strategies may not be recognized by wallet decoders. In these cases, users often rely on external verification.
External verification should focus on mechanism, not branding. The contract address, method name, and parameters matter more than a logo. The safest approach is to test with small amounts, confirm outcomes, and only then scale exposure.
If a wallet or hardware device offers a setting to block blind signing, it can be left enabled in daily use and only temporarily relaxed for known workflows. This makes the safer path the default.
Blind signing is also a product and integration problem. Teams reduce user risk when they design signing flows that are displayable.
Using typed structured data for signatures helps. Providing stable contract interfaces and verified ABIs helps. Avoiding unnecessary multicall complexity helps. Explaining why a signature is needed, and what it authorizes, reduces user confusion and can prevent reflexive signing.
When protocols rely on permits or signature-based approvals, deadlines and clear domain separation matter. A signature that never expires increases the cost of a single mistake.
Blind signing is approving a transaction or message the wallet cannot clearly decode. It works by producing a valid cryptographic signature over an opaque payload, which attackers can exploit when the user trusts the dapp UI instead of the wallet’s verification. Clear signing, typed structured data, and better contract decoding reduce blind signing moments, but users still benefit most from strict habits: avoid unknown signing requests, verify contract identity, limit persistent permissions, and separate wallets by risk level.
The post What Is Blind Signing? appeared first on Crypto Adventure.
Also read: « C’est inédit depuis le 9/11 » : une ville américaine est coupée du monde et personne ne sait pourquoi
