Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2608.29134

Mechanizing Typed Regulatory Actions for Security Tokens: Semantics, Falsification, and Bounded EVM Evidence

Abstract

Security-token standards expose privileged controls without identifying the legal effect executed or the evidence and reversal obligations it carries. We formalize in Isabelle/HOL a reference execution semantics for the six ERC-8319 meanings: FREEZE, SEIZE, CONFISCATE, LIQUIDATE, RESTRICT, and RECOVER. It distinguishes applied, rejected, and operational-failure outcomes and mechanizes action-specific reversals, replay and epoch rules, complete frames, case-local terminality, and final receipts; the session builds without unproved placeholders or additional axioms. An indistinguishability theorem shows that bound kernel inputs cannot establish external facts about title, settlement, or entitlement. Constructive witnesses and direct mutations establish reachability and sensitivity for the declared fault set. For a successor ERC-TRUST Solidity/EVM candidate, we report separately scoped Foundry, Certora, Kontrol/KEVM, mutation, deterministic-build, runtime-identity, and independent-reproduction evidence. All twelve named evidence lanes pass with none pending, while the 74-row obligation ledger remains conditional: 70 rows are closed, two runtime-link rows remain successor obligations, and two are inapplicable. The Native runtime is bound separately from an ERC-3643 interoperability reference that explicitly reports Partial and full=false, not Verified Full. These results do not establish complete Isabelle-to-Solidity-to-EVM refinement, compiler correctness, audit completion, production readiness, deployment verification, or external legal truth. They provide a machine-checked domain semantics and an explicit map of proved, bounded, assumed, and open results.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Jinwook Kim. 2026-09-06. Mechanizing Typed Regulatory Actions for Security Tokens: Semantics, Falsification, and Bounded EVM Evidence. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.29134

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Security Science (SecSci), Basic Concepts and Mathematical Foundations

This textbook compiles the lecture notes from security courses taught at Oxford in the 2000s, at Royal Holloway in the 2010s, and currently in Hawaii. The early chapters are suitable for a first course in security. The middle chapters have been used in advanced courses. Towards the end there are also some research problems.

cs.CR

A Non-Formulable Theorem: A Fundamental Limit of Finite Syntactic Systems and Its Consequences for Security and AI

For every coherent and sufficiently expressive finite syntactic system S, we prove the existence of at least one theorem that S cannot produce autonomously. The result is a metatheorem: it proves the existence of a theorem, and applies to every finite syntactic system - security mechanisms, AI systems, formal verifiers, legal systems, economic models, and the formal system in which it is itself proved.

cs.CR

Proof verification by polynomial Fingerprinting

To cater to the needs of fast verification for mathematical proofs, we describe a method to encode formal sentences in $2 \times 2$ - matrices over multivariate polynomials with integer coefficients. This correspondence is homomorphic: usual proof-steps like modus-ponens or variable substitution in terms and formulae become operations with matrices. By evaluating the polynomial variables in random elements of a suitably chosen finite field, the proof is replaced by a numeric sequence. Only the values corresponding to axioms and tautologies have to be computed from scratch. The values corresponding to derived formulas are computed from the values corresponding to their ancestors by applying the homomorphic properties. The polynomial matrix corresponding to the conclusion of the proof is also evaluated in the chosen random values. If the last term of the numeric sequence equals the evaluation of the conclusion, by the Schwartz-Zippel Lemma, the proof is with high probability correct.

math.LO