Is it a good practice to use a smart contract just as storage of eth with no functionality? Not even locking functionality, just having eth there?

Or in such a case a wallet is the correct practice?

  • 3
    I think more details are needed. While a plain wallet is probably more secure against attacks on the network, there are other threats to the store (or, more importantly, retrieval) of ether. For example, with long term storage, access to keys may be lost (e.g., forgotten password or bitrot) or ether is lost due to key-owner death. There are ways of addressing these issues with wallets. Contracts can also keep ether tied up intentionally (similar to time-locked vaults at banks). Thus, you need to elaborate on your question for a useful answer.
    – lungj
    Commented Dec 8, 2017 at 8:13

1 Answer 1


If you just want to store it, use a wallet. With a contract you expose those ETH to unnecessary risks.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.