Blog

Why Transaction Simulation Is the Web3 Wallet Feature You Actually Need

by Vijay Kamat in Uncategorized September 24, 2025

Whoa! I know—wallets are boring, right? But hang on. There’s a weirdly powerful idea hiding in plain sight: simulate every smart contract interaction before you sign it. My instinct said this would be overkill at first. Actually, wait—let me rephrase that: initially I thought simulation was just for devs and auditors. Then I watched a friend lose funds to a sneaky allowance exploit and it hit me that this is a user-level safety problem, not a niche tooling gap. Seriously?

Here’s the thing. Most people treat a wallet like a browser for transactions: type, confirm, done. But smart contracts are tiny programs. They can fail, they can behave differently on-chain than in a dev environment, and they can have hidden state-dependent traps. On one hand you can rely on UX warnings and heuristics. On the other hand you can actually run the transaction against a copy of the chain state and see exactly what happens—if the wallet supports it. That difference matters.

Think of simulation like a dress rehearsal. You’ll spot the bad lines. You’ll catch the timing issues. And yeah, sometimes you’ll feel silly for overchecking—but that one saved wallet could be the one that prevents a catastrophic loss. I’m biased, but security is sexy when it prevents disaster.

What simulation buys you (beyond gas estimates)

Short summary: revert detection, state changes preview, token flows inspection, and better UX for approvals. Medium detail: simulation reveals whether a token transfer will succeed, whether a function will revert with a specific error, and whether the call will manipulate allowances in a way you didn’t expect. Longer thought: by instrumenting the call with an EVM trace you can see nested calls, external contract interactions, and even gas refunds—things that gas estimation alone won’t show—which matters when you’re interacting with composable DeFi protocols that call dozens of contracts under the hood.

On a practical level, simulating a transaction can show: which token balances change, which contracts get approval, whether a multisig requires extra signatures, if an on-chain oracle might be queried, and if a call will trigger a liquidation or a collateral transfer. Those are real consequences. They aren’t academic. And yet many wallets don’t surface that information in a user-friendly way.

Hmm… a quick caveat: simulation isn’t a magic bullet. It depends on the RPC and the state snapshot you simulate against. Networks and mempools are messy. But a good wallet will run the sim locally or via a trustworthy RPC, show the trace, and annotate the risk—so you’re making an informed choice, not just guessing.

Let me walk through a few scenarios I see all the time.

Scenario 1 — Approvals gone wrong

Short take: approving unlimited allowances is a bad idea. Medium: many dapps ask for infinite approve (ERC-20 approve max uint256) to “save gas” on repeated approvals. Long: this exposes you to downstream contract risks, because if that contract gets compromised or interacts with a malicious contract later, your tokens can be drained without another on-chain approval step from you.

Simulation helps by showing the allowance change explicitly. It can show that your allowance went from 0 to max, and which contract received it. It can even show, in some cases, expected token outflows if the dapp’s flow is deterministic. That gives you leverage: refuse infinite approvals, use delay or limited approvals, or use permits (EIP-2612) where possible.

Here’s what bugs me: many wallets still bury this info. It should be front-and-center. A confident confirm screen that says “This will grant X contract the ability to transfer up to Y tokens” is low effort, huge impact.

Scenario 2 — Composed DeFi calls

Picture this: a single transaction calls a router that splits your funds across several protocols, interacts with oracles, and returns tokens to your address. Short version: complexity increases the blast radius. Medium: a swap might revert if slippage is off, but sometimes it partially succeeds and leaves you with dust or redirected funds. Longer: front-running and MEV can reorder or sandwich your transaction, and a simulation (combined with mempool monitoring) helps you see whether your transaction is likely to be profitable or dangerous in the current mempool conditions.

Simulation can also surface oracle dependencies. If your swap triggers a repricing via a price oracle that’s stale or manipulable, a sim will show the price used. That can be the difference between a good trade and a sandwich attack getting you rekt.

Oh, and by the way… many defi UX patterns are fragile. Permission revocation is hard. Nonce gaps are ugly. Simulating before you sign reduces those surprises.

How wallets should implement simulation (technical bit)

Short: callStatic + eth_call + trace. Medium: implement callStatic for read-only prediction, and run an eth_call with the transaction payload against a consistent state (optionally with state overrides) to catch reverts. For deeper inspection, collect an EVM execution trace or a debug_traceTransaction to show internal calls, logs, and storage writes. Long: combine these with balance diffs and token transfer logs (Transfer events) reconstruction to present a human-readable preview: “If you sign, X tokens will be sent, Y will be approved for contract Z, and gas will be ~G”—and annotate likely risks like “external contract call to unknown address”.

Local replay is even better. Some wallets spin up a light, temporary VM snapshot and execute the transaction locally to avoid trusting remote RPCs completely. That’s heavier, but for high-value ops it makes sense. Also, running simulations server-side opens centralization risks, so trust models matter.

UX: How to show simulation results without scaring users away

Start with clear signals. Short confirmation statements first. Then expandable technical details for power users. Medium: show token flows, final balances, and any external addresses the transaction will interact with. Longer: provide annotated traces with human-friendly language—”This call will transfer 100 USDC from you to contract X to be staked in protocol Y. Protocol Y may delegate to a strategy contract Z which is non-audited.”

And yes, allow defaults. Not every user wants to read a 100-line trace. But the option must exist and be easy to access. Also, surface action items: “Click revoke if you don’t trust and set approval to exact amount” or “Hold to confirm after reviewing trace.” Small nudges, big effect.

I’m not 100% sure about the best phrasing for every user cohort, but I’ve seen the sweet spot: short, declarative safety text + one-click advanced view. Developers and power users dive deeper. Casual users get reassurance. Works in practice.

Where simulation falls short

Short: it’s not omniscient. Medium: it won’t predict chain reorganizations, subtle MEV outcomes, or external actor behavior that depends on off-chain signals. Longer: if your transaction relies on off-chain oracle updates or timelocked states, a sim can only reflect the current snapshot and cannot guarantee future on-chain state changes that will occur between simulation and mining.

Also, simulation quality depends on RPC fidelity. If your RPC sanitizes or responds differently, the sim may lie. That’s why wallets that offer local, deterministic simulations, or allow users to choose a trusted RPC, are stronger. And trust me—I’ve tripped on bad RPCs. They give a false sense of security.

Real features I want in every modern Web3 wallet

Okay, so check this out—if I were designing the perfect wallet for DeFi users, it’d include:

• Transaction simulation with EVM trace and human-friendly annotations.
• Permission manager that tracks allowances and lets you revoke with a click.
• Mempool-aware warnings for potential sandwich or frontrunning risks.
• Local signing with hardware wallet support and optional offline signing.
• Contextual safety signals for unknown contract calls (code hashes, audit badges, source links).

One more thing: wallets should expose a permissions timeline so you can see historical approves and revokes. Very very useful when you audit your own on-chain hygiene.

A practical recommendation

If you want to try a wallet that emphasizes these features, give this a look: https://rabby-web.at/. I’m not shilling blindly—I’ve used similar tools and the difference in transaction clarity is night and day. You’ll feel more confident signing complex DeFi interactions, and you’ll probably catch a few things you’d otherwise miss.