Zero Exploit Track Record, Backed
by Rigorous Smart Contract Audits

A smart contract development solutions approach defines a smart contract as a program deployed on a blockchain that runs exactly as written, every time, with no ability to intervene once live. That immutability is its strength and its biggest risk. A bug in a smart contract cannot be patched with a hotfix. It has to be mitigated, migrated, or accepted as a permanent loss. Auditing finds those bugs before real money is at risk. $3.8B was lost in 2022 to exploits that auditing would have caught. The audit cost is a fraction of 1% of what those protocols lost.

Cost depends on contract complexity, the number of contracts in the system, audit requirements, and whether governance or upgrade mechanisms are included. A single token contract costs less than a full DeFi protocol with AMM logic, governance, and multi-contract interactions. We provide a transparent, itemized proposal within 48 hours of receiving your brief.

A token contract with audit takes 4 to 8 weeks. A DeFi protocol with full test suite and third-party audit takes 8 to 14 weeks. Enterprise multi-contract systems with governance take 12 to 20 weeks. Timeline depends on scope and whether the specification phase reveals complexity that was not visible upfront.

We use Slither for static analysis, Mythril for symbolic execution, Echidna and Foundry for fuzz testing, Aderyn for additional audit tooling, and Tenderly for deployment monitoring and transaction simulation. These run in automated CI/CD pipelines throughout development, not just before audit submission.

Fuzz testing generates millions of random inputs and runs them against your contract functions to find inputs that break expected behavior. Manual test cases only cover scenarios the developer thought of. Fuzz testing covers scenarios no one thought of. Most real exploits hit edge cases that manual testing never reaches. Foundry makes fuzz testing fast and practical. We require it on every contract we ship.

Yes, if the contract is built with a proxy upgrade pattern from the start. UUPS, Transparent, and Diamond proxy patterns all allow logic upgrades while preserving contract state and address. Immutable contracts cannot be upgraded. If you want upgradeability, it must be designed in from day one. Retrofitting a proxy pattern onto an immutable contract requires a full migration and user action.

Yes. We have native Rust engineers who write Solana programs using both the native Solana SDK and the Anchor framework. Solana's account-based execution model is architecturally different from EVM. Security patterns, testing approaches, and audit requirements are all different. We treat Solana development as its own engineering discipline, not an EVM port.

We build and audit ERC-20, ERC-721, ERC-1155, ERC-1400, ERC-3643 (T-REX), ERC-4626, ERC-4337, BEP-20, and SPL on Solana. We also build custom token standards on non-EVM chains where no standard fits the use case. The correct standard for your project is determined during the specification phase. Picking the wrong one creates expensive migration problems after launch.