Can blockchain ever have a universal security playbook?

In the decentralized world of blockchains, innovation moves fast actually too fast for uniformity. Every Layer 1 and Layer 2 chain is optimizing for scalability, modularity, and speed. But as the ecosystem grows, so does its complexity and vulnerability.

In a thoughtful discussion with Alankar Saxena, Co-founder and CTO of Mudrex, we discovered the most crucial question in crypto infrastructure: Is it possible to create a universal security standard across this wild, multi-chain universe?

The ambition: a universal blockchain security standard

Let’s start with the obvious: crypto is chaotic by design. Modular architectures split consensus, execution, and data layers, offering unmatched flexibility, but also opening up fragmented attack surfaces.

Despite all these complexities, a universal security standard, akin to ISO/IEC 27001 or NIST for traditional systems, is not out of reach. Standards like the OWASP Smart Contract Security Verification Standard (SCSVS) for EVM-compatible chains prove that scoped frameworks can work.

But for a truly cross-ecosystem standard, three things are critical:

• Flexibility to handle constant tech evolution.
• Domain awareness to address blockchain-specific threats.
• Collaboration across networks, companies, and developers.

It seems impossible but it’s not, though it’s not going to be easy.

Where things get messy: client diversity and cryptographic clutter

You can’t build a security blueprint if everyone’s using a different type of brick. And that’s the problem, client diversity is a serious roadblock. Even though multiple client implementations exist, networks often lean on a dominant one. A single critical bug can bring down the entire system.

Introducing fraud proofs or client identity layers into consensus may help, but they add overhead and complexity to already fragile protocols. The better way to do it is ZKPs (Zero-Knowledge Proofs), it’s a breakthrough in privacy and scaling, but a nightmare for standardization. Add in the variability of consensus mechanisms across chains, and the idea of a “universal” anything starts to feel ambitious, if not naive.

Under the radar: vulnerabilities no one’s talking about

While most eyes are on flashy exploits and rug pulls, the real danger lies in infrastructure-level flaws, the ones that rarely make headlines but can paralyze the system.

Here’s what’s keeping CTOs awake:

• Mempool manipulation: Flooding transaction queues to skew gas fees and DeFi liquidations.
• RPC endpoint abuse: Weak security on RPCs can lead to data leaks and DoS attacks.
• Consensus-layer censorship: Quietly excluding or delaying transactions, especially on networks with low validator diversity.

Even deeper threats like routing exploits, supply chain attacks, and transaction metadata leaks require a holistic security approach that covers everything from nodes to wallets to APIs.

Scam intelligence: building a brain that speaks every blockchain

Imagine a global, real-time scam detection system that works across centralized exchanges, DeFi protocols, and bridges. Though it sounds ideal, but the technical barriers are brutal.

Why?

• Fragmentation: Each chain has its own data structure, consensus rules, and governance models.
• No standardized APIs: Sharing scam data is nearly impossible without a common language.
• Latency & trust issues: Real-time sync needs low-lag infra and reliable data sources across jurisdictions.

In short, without strong cross-chain collaboration, the system remains more of a wish list than a working model.

Could wallet reputation and address labeling fix it?

According to Alankar, partial solutions do exist. Address labeling and wallet reputation standards could offer consistent threat scoring across chains. For example, assigning a trust score or flag to a wallet based on behavior patterns.

But here’s the rub:

• The system must be tamper-resistant and Sybil-proof.
• It must respect user privacy, a core crypto principle.
• It must integrate off-chain data and analytics to be truly effective.

He shared a clever example: “Memo Tags”—extra metadata on CEX addresses that help trace the true identity behind transactions. Alone, they aren’t silver bullets—but paired with on-chain heuristics and cross-platform intelligence, they could become the foundation for real-time scam defense.

STIX and TAXII in crypto? Great idea—with caveats

Adopting cybersecurity standards like STIX (Structured Threat Information eXpression) and TAXII (Trusted Automated Exchange of Intelligence Information) for blockchain networks could be promising.

These tools could unify threat-sharing across exchanges, wallets, and analytics firms. But the reality isn’t plug-and-play:

• STIX vocabulary doesn’t natively support crypto elements like wallet addresses, smart contract actions, or gas patterns.
• Custom extensions would be needed fast.
• Privacy laws limit what data can be shared across borders.
• Integrating blockchain with TAXII could slow performance due to ledger write times.

So yes, it’s possible but only with custom tooling and new layers of trust.

Machine learning: not just about labels anymore

Scammers are evolving, they now mimic normal DeFi behavior, flash loans, MEV tactics, wallet rotations, making fraud detection incredibly hard.

Training ML models to detect such subtle anomalies is no longer about labeled fraud examples. Instead, it’s about:

• Outlier detection using unsupervised learning.
• Combining rule-based engines with human expertise.
• Continuously retraining with new behavioral patterns.

He cites SingularityNET as a model that blends AI with decentralized intelligence. But even the best models need constant updates and human oversight to stay ahead of adversaries who now study the detectors as closely as they plan the attack.

We need frameworks, not fantasies

The blockchain world is too fast, too fragmented, and too fluid for traditional security models to simply be copy-pasted. What we need instead are dynamic frameworks standards that evolve with the ecosystem, absorb community input, and focus as much on protocol-level integrity as on human-level education.

Universal standards aren’t a pipe dream. But getting there means more than agreements, it means architecture, alignment, and above all, action. Because in a decentralized world, security isn't just everyone's job, it's everyone’s problem.