Contract Network Forensics Using Graph-Based Fraud Detection

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current blockchain networks face challenges in organizing and tracking updates to multi-party smart contracts, which are difficult to upgrade due to their immutable nature, and are vulnerable to fraudulent transactions and complex fraud schemes involving multiple collaborating contracts.

Innovation Solution

The Value Token Transfer Protocol (VTTP) enables intra- and inter-chain value transfers across blockchain networks, supports a client-server and peer-to-peer model, and employs computational graph modeling to detect coordinated fraud by analyzing inter-contract relationships and behaviors.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If smart contracts are made immutable to ensure security and trustlessness, then reliability is improved, but adaptability deteriorates making upgrades difficult

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesmart contract securityVSAvoidcontract upgrade capability
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments the smart contract system into multiple components: immutable core contracts for security, and separate upgradeable modules or proxy contracts for adaptability. This allows the system to maintain reliability through immutable code while achieving adaptability through structured decomposition and modular replacement of specific contract components.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent introduces intermediary structures such as proxy contracts, factory contracts, or governance mechanisms that mediate between the immutable smart contract code and the need for upgrades. These intermediaries enable controlled modifications and updates without compromising the security guarantees of the original immutable contracts.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

2Ease of operation

If blockchain networks use traditional transaction monitoring to detect fraud, then ease of operation is maintained, but measurement precision deteriorates failing to identify coordinated illicit activities

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvefraud detection simplicityVSAvoidfraud scheme detection accuracy
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSMeasurement precision

Solution Approach 1:

The patent transitions from traditional single-dimension transaction monitoring to multi-dimensional analysis by incorporating graph-based representations of contract relationships, temporal patterns, and network topology. This dimensional expansion enables detection of coordinated fraud schemes that operate across multiple contracts while maintaining operational simplicity through automated analysis.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #17Another dimension (Dimensionality change)

Solution Approach 2:

The patent combines multiple detection methodologies into a composite fraud detection system that integrates traditional transaction monitoring with advanced graph analysis, machine learning models, and pattern recognition. This composite approach achieves high measurement precision for sophisticated fraud while preserving ease of operation through unified automated processing.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #40Composite materials

Data Source

PatentUS20260111887A1Methods and systems for forensic investigations in contract networks
Publication Date: 2026.04.23 MADISETTI VIJAY
  • US20260111887A1 patent drawing
  • US20260111887A1 patent drawing
  • US20260111887A1 patent drawing

AI summary

Systems and methods for blockchain value transfers including receiving at the server a plurality of transaction requests, each transaction request including sending and receiving user account addresses on first and second blockchain networks, a transaction value in in-network tokens, and an API request, performing a balance check procedure on each transaction request including determining if the transaction value is greater than a permitted transaction amount of the sending user account address, and either refusing the transaction or adding the transaction to an aggregate transaction record. The permitted transaction is updated for the sending and receiving addresses to reflect the transaction and a transaction including calculating a net transaction amount is initiated.