UX is a security surface, not a cosmetic layer
Every lesson in this course about spotting risky transactions assumes a user who can actually see what they're authorizing. In practice, most dApp transaction requests show a user a wall of hex data, a generic 'Confirm' button, and nothing that communicates what will actually happen if they sign. A user who can't tell the difference between a normal transfer and an unlimited approval draining their wallet isn't failing at vigilance, they were never given the information vigilance requires. A dApp that requests the broadest possible approval by default, sets no expiry, and surfaces no human-readable summary of what a signature grants is making an unsafe decision easy and a safe one require unusual effort.
Building responsibly means treating clear transaction communication as a real design requirement: request the minimum approval amount and scope actually needed for the interaction, not unlimited by default; set reasonable expirations on approvals; surface a plain-language summary of what a signature does before the user's wallet prompt even appears; and integrate with simulation tooling so the wallet's own confirmation screen can show accurate real effects. None of this replaces the user's own judgment, but it changes what judgment is being asked to evaluate, from raw hex nobody can parse to information a careful user can actually act on.