On this page
Checks before receivingStart a transferReview the transaction requestTrack after submissionCommon mistakes and responsesChecks before receiving
When reviewing Checks before receiving, separate receiving address, target network, and token type. They may appear in the same workflow, but they represent different layers of the action. On this Send & Receive Assets page, the goal is to build a verifiable mental model rather than depend on a single interface cue. Before approving anything, identify the network, the object being changed, and whether the request matches the task you intended to perform.
A useful routine is to review items in a fixed order: confirm target network, verify token type, inspect address format, and keep memo/tag for later reference. If a page unexpectedly asks for receiving address, stop and verify the source instead of continuing simply because the workflow looks familiar.
From a security perspective, Checks before receiving should be considered together with token type, address format, and memo/tag. A legitimate review flow does not require you to reveal a seed phrase, private key, or verification code. Requests involving receiving address or target network can change permissions or asset state, so review them individually and reject anything you do not understand.
Start a transfer
In practice, recipient address often tells you whether you are in the right context, amount affects the resulting state, and network helps with independent verification afterward. Do not rely only on a success message in the interface. Where on-chain state is involved, compare it with gas and balance so you can distinguish presentation from the actual network result.
Start a transfer also has failure modes. Congestion, incorrect parameters, insufficient balances, contract conditions, or third-party service changes can produce unexpected results. Start with the objective state of amount, network, and gas before retrying. Repeated submissions without understanding the cause can add fees or duplicate actions.
When reviewing Start a transfer, separate network, gas, and balance. They may appear in the same workflow, but they represent different layers of the action. On this Send & Receive Assets page, the goal is to build a verifiable mental model rather than depend on a single interface cue. Before approving anything, identify the network, the object being changed, and whether the request matches the task you intended to perform.
- recipient address
- amount
- network
- gas
- balance
Review the transaction request
A useful routine is to review items in a fixed order: confirm transaction details, verify contract interaction, inspect fee, and keep nonce for later reference. If a page unexpectedly asks for signing, stop and verify the source instead of continuing simply because the workflow looks familiar.
From a security perspective, Review the transaction request should be considered together with contract interaction, fee, and nonce. A legitimate review flow does not require you to reveal a seed phrase, private key, or verification code. Requests involving signing or transaction details can change permissions or asset state, so review them individually and reject anything you do not understand.
In practice, fee often tells you whether you are in the right context, nonce affects the resulting state, and signing helps with independent verification afterward. Do not rely only on a success message in the interface. Where on-chain state is involved, compare it with transaction details and contract interaction so you can distinguish presentation from the actual network result.
Track after submission
Track after submission also has failure modes. Congestion, incorrect parameters, insufficient balances, contract conditions, or third-party service changes can produce unexpected results. Start with the objective state of transaction hash, block explorer, and confirmation count before retrying. Repeated submissions without understanding the cause can add fees or duplicate actions.
When reviewing Track after submission, separate block explorer, confirmation count, and pending status. They may appear in the same workflow, but they represent different layers of the action. On this Send & Receive Assets page, the goal is to build a verifiable mental model rather than depend on a single interface cue. Before approving anything, identify the network, the object being changed, and whether the request matches the task you intended to perform.
A useful routine is to review items in a fixed order: confirm confirmation count, verify pending status, inspect 失败, and keep transaction hash for later reference. If a page unexpectedly asks for block explorer, stop and verify the source instead of continuing simply because the workflow looks familiar.
Common mistakes and responses
From a security perspective, Common mistakes and responses should be considered together with wrong network, wrong address, and insufficient gas balance. A legitimate review flow does not require you to reveal a seed phrase, private key, or verification code. Requests involving duplicate transfer or scam address can change permissions or asset state, so review them individually and reject anything you do not understand.
In practice, wrong address often tells you whether you are in the right context, insufficient gas balance affects the resulting state, and duplicate transfer helps with independent verification afterward. Do not rely only on a success message in the interface. Where on-chain state is involved, compare it with scam address and wrong network so you can distinguish presentation from the actual network result.
Common mistakes and responses also has failure modes. Congestion, incorrect parameters, insufficient balances, contract conditions, or third-party service changes can produce unexpected results. Start with the objective state of insufficient gas balance, duplicate transfer, and scam address before retrying. Repeated submissions without understanding the cause can add fees or duplicate actions.