The Rise of 'Tokenized Consent': What It Means for Your Digital Footprint (And Why You Should Disappear Before It's Too Late)

The privacy technology world has discovered a new buzzword that's rapidly gaining momentum: tokenized consent. It appears in regulatory discussions, privacy-tech conference presentations, and corporate strategy documents. LinkedIn posts from privacy professionals frame it as the future of user control. Blockchain enthusiasts celebrate it as the inevitable next evolution of data rights. The narrative is compelling: consent becomes a programmable token, stored on a decentralized ledger, that travels with your data and enforces your preferences automatically through smart contracts.

For 2025, tokenized consent represents the cutting edge of privacy-enhancing technology. The underlying concept is sound: instead of companies maintaining consent records in proprietary systems you can't audit or control, your consent becomes a cryptographic token that you own and control, that can be revoked instantly, and that enforces your preferences through automated code rather than relying on companies to honor opt-outs.

But here's what the enthusiasts aren't discussing: tokenized consent might be the most sophisticated privacy trap ever constructed.

The reason it's being positioned as revolutionary is the same reason you should be skeptical. Tokenized consent takes the data collection infrastructure that already exists and makes it dramatically more efficient, more portable, and harder to escape. It doesn't reduce surveillance—it optimizes it. It doesn't give you control—it creates an illusion of control while simultaneously making you more transparent and more trackable across interconnected systems.

This is the story of how the privacy technology designed to protect you from the data economy might actually accelerate your integration into it. More importantly, it's why disappearing from these emerging systems is becoming increasingly urgent.

What Tokenized Consent Actually Is (Beyond the Marketing)

To understand the risks, you need to understand the architecture. Tokenized consent is more complex than traditional consent mechanisms, and its sophistication is precisely what creates the danger.

The Technical Promise: Consent as Code

At its theoretical best, tokenized consent works like this: You create a digital wallet that securely stores your identity and your consent preferences. When you encounter a service that wants to use your data, instead of clicking "I agree" to a 10,000-word privacy policy you'll never read, you're presented with a machine-readable request that specifies exactly which data points are requested, for what purpose, for how long, and under what conditions.

You can approve this request by generating a consent token—a cryptographic credential that proves your permission. The token is immutable (can't be secretly changed), time-limited (expires on a date you specify), conditional (only valid for the stated purposes), and revocable (you can invalidate it instantly).

The data itself travels with this token. When the service provider uses your data, the token enforces the conditions through smart contracts—self-executing code that automatically stops data access when the consent expires, prevents use for unauthorized purposes, and logs access for auditing.

The promise is that this creates transparency, control, and automatic enforcement. Companies can't secretly extend consent. They can't repurpose data beyond what was approved. You have complete visibility into who's accessing your data and for what purposes.

It's theoretically more protective than any consent system we've ever had.

In practice, it's far more dangerous.

The Decentralized Identity Infrastructure Behind Tokenized Consent

Tokenized consent doesn't exist in isolation. It's part of a larger ecosystem called self-sovereign identity (SSI) or decentralized identity—systems where you control your own digital identity rather than relying on centralized authorities like governments or corporations to authenticate you.

In an SSI system, you create and control your own digital identity credentials using technologies like:

Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) - unique identifiers that don't rely on any central authority. Instead of having your identity managed by a corporation (like Facebook) or government (like a state DMV), you create a DID that's anchored to a blockchain. Only you control the private keys that can assert your identity.

Verifiable Credentials (VCs) - digital credentials that prove claims about you (your age, employment status, educational background, or consent decisions) without requiring a centralized issuer to validate them. A credential issued by one party can be verified by another party through blockchain-backed cryptography.

Identity Wallets - digital applications where you store your DIDs, verifiable credentials, and consent tokens. Your wallet is your personal vault of identity and consent information.

Smart Contracts - self-executing code that automates enforcement of the conditions in your consent tokens.

Together, these technologies create an infrastructure where your identity, your credentials, and your consent preferences can move with you across different services and platforms. You're no longer locked into siloed identity systems maintained by individual companies.

This is where the revolution in privacy control is supposed to happen.

This is also where the new vulnerabilities emerge.

Why Tokenized Consent Creates New Privacy Risks (Not Solutions)

The contradiction at the heart of tokenized consent is that the very features that make it theoretically more protective create new and more dangerous vulnerabilities.

Risk 1: Comprehensive Identity Linking at Scale

Traditional privacy systems worked (imperfectly) through fragmentation. Your credit card company had your financial identity. Your email provider had your communication identity. Your social media account had your social identity. These separate systems couldn't easily be linked because they used different identifiers and were maintained by different companies.

Tokenized consent and self-sovereign identity are designed to overcome this fragmentation. Your DID serves as a single, universal identifier that links all your consent tokens and verifiable credentials across all services. Instead of having scattered identity fragments, you now have a unified, portable identity that can be linked across all systems simultaneously.

This unified identity solves a genuine problem: companies can't verify your credentials without talking to centralized authorities, creating dependency and privacy risk.

But it creates a far more serious problem: your identity becomes completely portable and linkable. A single DID can be connected to your health data, financial records, educational background, employment history, behavioral patterns, and consent decisions across hundreds of services. Instead of data existing in silos (which creates natural privacy fragmentation), everything is now linkable through a single identifier that you carry with you.

If an attacker, data broker, or government agency gains access to information linking your DID to your real identity, they suddenly have comprehensive access to your entire digital profile across all services. The portability and interoperability that's supposed to be liberating becomes a comprehensive vulnerability.

Worse, the blockchain ledgers that anchor these systems create permanent, immutable records. Your DID addresses and transactions may be pseudonymous, but they create permanent correlation data that can be analyzed to identify patterns and eventually link to your real identity.

Risk 2: Consent as a Trackable Commodity

Tokenized consent tokens are designed to be portable and transferable. You create a token saying you consent to data access, and that token can be moved around, copied, and transmitted to demonstrate your permission.

But tokens are data. Like all data, they can be analyzed. A sophisticated attacker or data broker could:

Profile your consent patterns - If you consistently grant consent for health data but refuse financial data, that pattern itself reveals information about your preferences and potentially your health or financial concerns.

Infer refusals - When you refuse consent, you're leaving a signal. A missing consent token for a service you interact with implies you rejected data sharing. These refusals are themselves informative.

Create behavioral profiles - By analyzing which types of data you consent to share and when, data brokers can create detailed profiles of your risk tolerance, privacy concerns, and likely vulnerabilities.

Use consent tokens as tracking identifiers - The tokens themselves could potentially be used to track you across services, since the same token proves your identity across multiple contexts.

In traditional systems, your consent decisions are private (only visible to companies you're directly interacting with). In tokenized systems, your consent decisions are cryptographic objects that exist on blockchains, exist in your wallet, and potentially exist in the systems of every service provider with whom you've interacted. The privacy of your privacy preferences is compromised.

Risk 3: Smart Contract Vulnerabilities Creating Unintended Data Access

Smart contracts are self-executing code that enforces consent conditions. The theory is that if a condition says "only access this health data for the purpose of treating my injury, not for general medical research," the smart contract prevents any other use.

But smart contracts are vulnerable software, and consent-enforcing smart contracts are particularly dangerous because they're designed to interact with sensitive data.

The smart contract vulnerabilities documented in 2025 include:

Access Control Flaws - Bugs in the contract code that allow unauthorized parties to trigger functions that bypass consent restrictions.

Logic Errors - Conditions written incorrectly so that data access is permitted when it should be denied, or permissions are granted to wrong parties.

Reentrancy Attacks - An attacker calls the contract recursively, exploiting a vulnerability where the contract's state isn't updated before external calls complete, allowing multiple data accesses from a single permission.

Price Oracle Manipulation - When smart contracts reference external data (like exchange rates), attackers manipulate these feeds to trigger unintended contract behavior.

Input Validation Failures - The contract doesn't properly verify that requests meet stated conditions, allowing data access that violates your consent.

In the Wormhole bridge hack (February 2022), a signature verification vulnerability allowed attackers to mint 120,000 Ethereum worth $324 million. The lesson: even sophisticated blockchain infrastructure has bugs that aren't discovered until after catastrophic exploitation.

Consent-enforcing smart contracts face the same vulnerabilities. A single logic error or input validation failure could allow a service provider to extract more data than your consent permits. Unlike traditional systems where you might discover the violation through auditing, smart contract bugs could silently grant unauthorized access.

Risk 4: Blockchain Analysis Revealing Your Identity Despite Pseudonymity

Tokenized consent systems typically operate under the assumption that you're pseudonymous—your DID doesn't directly reveal your identity.

But blockchains are transparent. All transactions are publicly visible. All DID addresses and their interactions are recorded permanently.

Sophisticated blockchain analysis can often de-anonymize pseudonymous identities by:

Transaction correlation - Your DID is used for multiple interactions (accessing health records, financial data, educational information). The pattern of these transactions can be correlated with external data to identify you.

Timing analysis - The timestamps of your consent grants and data access requests can be compared against other known activities to identify you.

Network analysis - The graph of which services you interact with can be analyzed to create a profile that uniquely identifies you.

Linking to centralized systems - At the point where you convert your DID to access a real-world service (signing into a bank, revealing identity to a healthcare provider), the connection between your DID and your real identity becomes established and recorded.

Over the past five years, blockchain security researchers have demonstrated that they can de-anonymize Bitcoin users with 95% accuracy using network analysis. Similar techniques can be applied to tokenized consent DIDs.

The immutability of blockchain is often presented as a security feature. But immutability also means that once your DID is linked to your real identity, that connection exists permanently on a public ledger. You can never unlink your pseudonym from your real identity.

Risk 5: Consent Fatigue and Manipulation Through UX Design

Tokenized consent systems are designed to present you with granular, machine-readable consent requests that are theoretically easier to understand than traditional privacy policies.

In practice, they create massive consent fatigue. If every data access requires a consent decision, you're presented with dozens or hundreds of consent requests daily. Companies know this.

The response is predictable: they'll design user interfaces that nudge you toward accepting consent requests. They'll make consent decisions pre-filled with "accept all." They'll frame refusals as suspicious. They'll use visual design and framing effects to influence your choices.

This is already happening with traditional consent systems. The FTC recently took action against companies using "dark patterns" to hide opt-out buttons. With tokenized consent, the problem scales. Every decision point becomes an opportunity for manipulation.

Moreover, the personalization of consent UX means companies can A/B test which framing and designs lead to the highest consent rates. Your consent decisions, which are supposed to represent your genuine preferences, are actually shaped by psychological manipulation optimized through machine learning.

You're not gaining control—you're being optimized into compliance.

Risk 6: Regulatory Capture and Centralization of Tokenized Systems

Tokenized consent is being positioned as decentralized and user-controlled. The reality is that actual deployment will likely involve significant centralization.

Companies will run identity wallet providers. These providers will control which DIDs you can create, which services you can connect to, and which consent tokens you can issue. Even if the underlying blockchain is decentralized, the applications you interact with will be centralized.

Regulatory frameworks being developed in 2025 are already moving toward requiring identity wallet providers to have licenses, undergo audits, and follow regulatory procedures. This creates centralization risk—the wallet provider becomes a single point of failure and a regulatory chokepoint.

If a wallet provider is hacked, all your consent tokens and identity credentials are compromised. If a wallet provider is seized by regulators, your entire identity is vulnerable. If a wallet provider chooses to monetize your data or consent patterns, you have limited recourse.

The decentralization narrative obscures this centralization risk.

Risk 7: Consent Without Meaningful Choice

The deepest risk of tokenized consent is that it creates the appearance of meaningful choice without the underlying conditions that make choice meaningful.

Meaningful consent requires:

• Alternatives - You must be able to decline data sharing and still access the service (or an acceptable alternative)
• Information - You must understand what you're consenting to and the consequences of your choice
• Absence of coercion - You must be free to refuse without retaliation or excessive friction

Tokenized consent optimizes for apparent granularity and transparency, but it doesn't address these foundational requirements. If a service requires data access as a condition of use, you're not meaningfully consenting—you're complying under duress.

Tokenized consent can make this duress feel voluntary. By presenting consent as a sophisticated, transparent, user-controlled process, it obscures the coercion. You feel empowered by having a consent token that you "control," but your real choice was made years ago when you decided to participate in digital systems that require data sharing as a condition of participation.

How Tokenized Consent Serves Corporate Interests (Not Individual Privacy)

Understanding tokenized consent requires understanding who's funding its development and deployment. The companies investing in tokenized consent infrastructure aren't privacy advocates—they're companies with vested interests in data collection and usage.

The Data Broker Strategy: Compliance Theater Through Technology

Data brokers are enthusiastically adopting tokenized consent narratives. Why? Because tokenized consent allows them to claim they're protecting privacy while actually making data flows more efficient and auditable.

If a data broker implements a tokenized consent system where individuals "approve" data sharing through consent tokens, the broker can claim they're honoring user preferences and maintaining compliance. But the underlying data flow doesn't change. Data is still collected, still aggregated, still sold.

The only difference is that now the data broker has a cryptographic record of your "consent" that they can present to regulators as evidence of compliance. The token becomes regulatory protection for data brokers, not genuine protection for individuals.

The Identity Provider Strategy: Creating Dependency and Lock-in

Companies positioning themselves as identity wallet providers or DID issuers are creating a new form of platform dependency. If you store all your identity credentials and consent tokens with a specific wallet provider, you become locked into their ecosystem.

This creates the opportunity for the wallet provider to:

• Monitor all your data access requests and consent decisions
• Build comprehensive behavioral profiles based on your patterns
• Sell insights derived from your consent and credential data
• Restrict which services you can interact with based on regulatory or business decisions
• Use your wallet as a gateway to control your access to digital services

The company positioning itself as your privacy protector becomes your new digital gatekeeper.

The Compliance Optimization Strategy: Regulations as Features

Tokenized consent is being adopted by companies as a strategy for regulatory compliance. By implementing consent tokens and smart contracts that enforce regulatory requirements automatically, companies can claim to have solved compliance problems.

But "solving" compliance through automation often means embedding regulatory requirements into code that the average user can't understand or challenge. If a smart contract implements GDPR requirements, those requirements are now enforced through opaque code rather than through legal processes where challenges and appeals are possible.

This shifts power from regulatory oversight to technical implementation. Companies that control the smart contracts control how regulations are interpreted and enforced.

The DisappearMe.AI Perspective: Why You Should Disappear Before Tokenization

DisappearMe.AI recognizes that tokenized consent represents a crucial inflection point. This technology is being deployed in the next 12-24 months. If you don't disappear from the data economy before tokenization reaches full scale, you'll be integrated into a system designed to make disappearance impossible.

Why Disappearing Before Tokenization Matters

Once your identity is tokenized and connected to blockchain-based systems, disappearing becomes exponentially harder. Here's why:

Immutability - Your DID addresses, consent transactions, and identity credentials are permanently recorded on blockchain ledgers. You cannot delete this data. You cannot undo the connection between your DID and your real identity once it's established.

Interoperability - Once your tokens are deployed across services, they create linking infrastructure that connects disparate databases. Removing yourself from one system requires removing yourself from the entire tokenized ecosystem.

Identity Portability - Your DID is designed to be portable across services. This means data aggregators can easily connect your identity across platforms that you thought were separate.

Regulatory Entrenchment - As governments adopt tokenized identity frameworks, governments will eventually require use of tokenized systems for services like banking, healthcare, and government benefits. Disappearing will mean losing access to essential services.

Disappearing now, before tokenization becomes mandatory, is dramatically easier than attempting to disappear from an integrated tokenized identity system.

The DisappearMe.AI Anti-Tokenization Strategy

For individuals who recognize the risks of tokenized consent, DisappearMe.AI provides strategies for remaining outside tokenized identity systems while they're still optional:

Pre-tokenization Data Removal - Remove all your information from data brokers, public records, and centralized identity systems before these systems integrate with tokenized infrastructure. Once integration happens, removal becomes orders of magnitude more difficult.

Opt-out from Early Tokenization Pilots - Many companies are piloting tokenized identity systems. Explicitly refuse to participate in these pilots. Once the technology reaches critical mass, you'll be unable to opt out.

Maintain Non-digital Identity Fragments - Preserve the ability to exist in fragmented identity systems that aren't yet tokenized. Use cash, avoid digital identity verification when possible, maintain analog documentation.

Build Privacy Infrastructure Before Tokenization - Implement strong privacy practices (VPN usage, encrypted communication, separate identities for different contexts) before these become impossible in a tokenized system.

Advocate Against Regulatory Tokenization - Support regulatory efforts that prevent governments from requiring tokenized identity systems. Once governments mandate tokenization, individual disappearance becomes illegal.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Is tokenized consent actually different from what exists today, or is this just new terminology?

Tokenized consent is fundamentally different from today's consent systems. Traditional systems store consent in proprietary databases. Tokenized systems store consent on blockchains as portable cryptographic objects. This creates different risks: immutability, portability, and blockchain analysis vulnerabilities that don't exist in traditional systems. However, the underlying power dynamics are similar—companies still control whether your choices are actually respected.

Q: If tokenized consent gives me better control over my data, why should I disappear instead?

Tokenized consent is designed to create the perception of control without delivering genuine control. You appear to have a token that you "own," but the system is designed by corporations for corporate benefit. True control would require being able to refuse data sharing without consequences, understanding complex smart contract code, and verifying that companies actually honor your preferences. Most users won't have any of these. More fundamentally, the appearance of control can be more dangerous than transparent surveillance, because it prevents you from recognizing the control being exercised over you.

Q: What's the difference between a decentralized identity system and a data broker database?

A decentralized identity system claims to give you control over your identity and credentials, with no central authority maintaining records. A data broker database is a centralized system where a company maintains your information and controls how it's used. However, in practice, decentralized identity systems require wallet providers, identity verification services, and credential issuers—creating centralization at a different layer. The promise of decentralization often masks actual centralization that's just more hidden.

Q: Will tokenized consent be required by law in the future?

Tokenized identity and consent frameworks are being adopted by governments in 2025. The EU is developing frameworks for digital identity wallets. The US is considering legislation that would require digital identity verification. If these become mandatory (which is the trajectory), disappearing from tokenized systems will become illegal in many jurisdictions. This is why disappearing before tokenization becomes mandatory is strategically important.

Q: Can I participate in tokenized consent systems while protecting my privacy?

Potentially, but with significant limitations. You could create a pseudonymous DID and use it for limited purposes. However, once your DID is linked to your real identity in any system (banking, healthcare, government), that connection is permanent and immutable on blockchain ledgers. You're better off remaining outside tokenized systems entirely if you're serious about privacy.

Q: How does tokenized consent relate to DisappearMe.AI's core mission?

DisappearMe.AI's mission is helping people disappear from data collection and surveillance systems. Tokenized consent represents a new frontier in this challenge. Instead of disappearing from traditional data brokers, you'd need to disappear from tokenized identity systems—a far more complex task once they're integrated with governments and essential services. Preparing for this transition is part of DisappearMe.AI's forward-looking strategy.

Q: Are there legitimate uses of self-sovereign identity that don't create these risks?

Self-sovereign identity has genuinely valuable applications: giving people in countries without stable governments the ability to prove their identity, enabling individuals to control health records independent of institutional gatekeepers, and creating portable credentials that individuals can selectively disclose. These benefits are real. However, these benefits can be achieved with pseudonymous DIDs that are never linked to real-world identity. Most deployments are moving toward linking pseudonymous DIDs to real identity to enable compliance and surveillance. The good features are being weaponized for surveillance purposes.

Q: What can individuals do to prepare for the tokenization transition?

The most important step is removing your information from systems that will eventually be connected to tokenized identity infrastructure. This means removing yourself from data brokers before they integrate with tokenized systems, securing control of your email addresses and phone numbers before they're linked to tokenized identities, and opting out of early-stage identity tokenization pilots. For the longer term, understand that maintaining privacy in a tokenized world will require either staying completely outside digital systems or creating extremely sophisticated compartmentalization strategies.

About DisappearMe.AI

DisappearMe.AI recognizes that privacy technology and surveillance technology are often indistinguishable. Tokenized consent is marketed as a privacy solution, but it creates the infrastructure for more sophisticated surveillance. The platform is designed to help individuals disappear from both traditional surveillance systems and emerging tokenized identity systems.

The mission is helping people maintain autonomy and privacy in an increasingly digital world. As technology evolves from data brokers to tokenized consent, from centralized databases to blockchain-based identity systems, the fundamental challenge remains the same: disappearing from systems designed to make you visible and trackable.

For tokenized consent and self-sovereign identity, the strategy is preventive. Disappear before these systems become integrated with essential services. Once they do, disappearing becomes exponentially harder.

References

• AI, Data & Analytics Network. (2025). "7 trends shaping data privacy in 2025." Retrieved from https://www.aidataanalytics.network/data-governance/articles/7-trends-shaping-data-privacy-in-2025

• Krayon Digital. (2024). "Decentralized Identity: User Consent Guide 2024." Retrieved from https://www.krayondigital.com/blog/decentralized-identity-user-consent-guide-2024

• TechnoHello. (2025). "Sovrin Network's Approach To Tokenized Consent for Enhanced Personal Data Control." Retrieved from https://www.technohello.com/can-tokenized-consent-improve-user-control-over-personal-data/

• George Gu University Digital Commons. (2025). "Self-Sovereign Identity and the Decentralized, Consent-Based Model." Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/blockchain_law/8/

• NIH/PMC. (2025). "Enabling secure and self determined health data sharing through blockchain and self-sovereign identity." Retrieved from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12398500/

• Nature. (2025). "Enabling secure and self determined health data sharing and management using blockchain, self-sovereign identity, and decentralized tokens." Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-025-01945-z

• Decentriq. (2025). "What is a data clean room? Complete guide (2025 edition)." Retrieved from https://www.decentriq.com/article/what-is-a-data-clean-room

• DinMo. (2025). "Data Clean Rooms (DCRs): Definition, How They Work, and Use Cases." Retrieved from https://www.dinmo.com/modern-data-stack/mds-tools/data-clean-room/

• Snowflake. (2025). "What Is a Data Clean Room? How It Works and Use Cases." Retrieved from https://www.snowflake.com/en/fundamentals/what-is-a-data-clean-room/

• Legal Nodes. (2025). "Stock Tokenization in 2025: A Legal Guide for Startup Founders." Retrieved from https://legalnodes.com/article/stock-tokenization-in-2025-a-legal-guide-for-startup-founders

• Carlton Fields. (2025). "Nasdaq Looking to Unveil Tokenized Trading Platform Next Year." Retrieved from https://www.carltonfields.com/insights/publications/2025/nasdaq-looking-to-unveil-tokenized-trading-platform-next-year/

• Ondo Finance. (2025). "Roadmap for Tokenized Securities: A Letter to the SEC." Retrieved from https://ondo.finance/blog/tokenized-securities-roadmap

• Nasdaq. (2025). "[PDF] sr-nasdaq-2025-072." Retrieved from https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/assets/rulebook/nasdaq/filings/SR-NASDAQ-2025-072.pdf

• TRM Labs. (2025). "Global Crypto Policy Review Outlook 2025/26 Report." Retrieved from https://www.trmlabs.com/reports-and-whitepapers/global-crypto-policy-review-outlook-2025-26

• Proskauer. (2025). "Nasdaq Proposes to Allow Trading of Tokenized Securities." Retrieved from https://www.proskauer.com/alert/nasdaq-proposes-to-allow-trading-of-tokenized-securities

• Token to Lawyer. (2024). "Tokenization and Data Privacy: What You Need to Know." Retrieved from https://www.tokentolawyer.com/post/tokenization-and-data-privacy-what-you-need-to-know

• XBTO. (2025). "Real-World Asset Tokenization Use Cases in 2025." Retrieved from https://www.xbto.com/resources/real-world-asset-tokenization-use-cases-in-2025

• CNBC. (2025). "Tokenized stocks offer new opportunities for investors, but carry unique risks." Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/05/tokenized-stocks-offer-new-opportunities-for-investors-but-carry-unique-risks.html

• HackerOne. (2025). "Smart Contracts: Common Vulnerabilities and Real-World Cases." Retrieved from https://www.hackerone.com/blog/smart-contracts-common-vulnerabilities-and-real-world-cases

• Protecto AI. (2025). "AI Data Privacy Concerns - Risks, Breaches, Issues In 2025." Retrieved from https://www.protecto.ai/blog/ai-data-privacy-concerns-risk-breaches/

• Avatier. (2025). "Consent Management: Building Trust Privacy-First." Retrieved from https://www.avatier.com/blog/consent-management-building-trust/

• LevelBlue. (2024). "Deep Dive into Blockchain Security Vulnerabilities and Protective Measures." Retrieved from https://levelblue.com/blogs/security-essentials/deep-dive-into-blockchain-security-vulnerabilities-and-protective-measures