Japan runs one of the most demanding digital asset supervision regimes in the world, and Japanese engagements reflect it: custody architecture, asset segregation, operational evidence and documentation quality carry as much weight as the code review itself.
ブロックチェーン・スマートコントラクトのセキュリティ監査 — 日本の取引所、発行体、事業会社向けに、スマートコントラクト監査、プロトコル監査、インフラ・鍵管理のセキュリティ評価を提供しています。報告書は英語で作成し、日本語での要約と説明会に対応します。
Japanese buyers ask different questions from the rest of the market. Less "find us bugs before launch", more "demonstrate that this system is operated safely and prove it in a form our internal audit and our supervisor can examine". The technical depth has to be there, and the documentation discipline around it has to be there too, because the report will be read carefully by people whose job is to find gaps in it.
Custody is the centre of gravity. Japan's regime around exchange operations has long emphasised segregation of customer assets and heavy use of cold storage, and the practical consequence is that the highest-value review work is on key ceremony, wallet architecture, the boundary between hot and cold, withdrawal approval workflow and the operational discipline around each. We test those by running them, not by reading the procedure document.
Security tokens are the second area. Japan built a securities-law route for tokenized instruments earlier than most markets, and the resulting products are held to instrument standards rather than token standards: transfer restrictions must be enforceable, the register must reconcile, and issuer powers must be governed. That is precisely the shape of our tokenized securities work.
Practically, we work Japanese business hours for Japanese clients, deliver reports in English with a Japanese-language executive summary, and run the findings debrief with interpretation where the team prefers it. Documentation is written to be handed to internal audit without a translation layer of our own explanation.
Regulatory references describe the general shape of a regime and are not legal advice. Requirements change; confirm your obligations with your own counsel and supervisor.
We fix a commit hash, agree the in-scope contracts and read your architecture docs, then build a threat model: who the actors are, what the trust boundaries are, and which invariants must never break. Nothing is reviewed against assumptions we have not written down.
Line-by-line review by at least two auditors working independently, focused on authorisation, accounting, upgrade paths, external integrations and the gap between what the code does and what the documentation claims it does. Most critical findings come from this phase, not from tooling.
Static analysers appropriate to the language, plus property-based fuzzing and invariant testing to push the system into states no unit test covers. Tooling is used to widen coverage, never to replace the manual pass.
Candidate findings are proven on a forked network with a working proof of concept. We report what an attacker can actually do and what it costs them, not a theoretical severity label.
Every finding gets a severity rating, reproduction steps, the affected code, the impact in concrete terms and a specific remediation. You get a draft for discussion before anything is finalised.
We re-test every remediation against the original proof of concept and check that the fix has not opened a new path. The final report is yours to publish.
Reports are written in English with a Japanese-language executive summary and finding titles, and debriefs can run with interpretation. Full-report translation can be arranged when internal audit requires it.
Yes — segregation of customer assets, cold wallet architecture, the hot/cold boundary, key ceremony and withdrawal approval workflow are the core of most Japanese exchange engagements we run.
Yes. Our tokenized securities work covers transfer-restriction enforceability, investor eligibility, register reconciliation and issuer powers, which is the shape a Japanese ST review takes.
Yes, for Japanese clients we schedule in JST. Critical findings are escalated the same day regardless of the hour.
Yes. Documented scope, methodology, tester qualifications, per-finding evidence and verified remediation are standard deliverables on Japanese engagements.
A repository or contract address, a commit hash to freeze the scope, whatever architecture or spec documentation exists, and a point of contact who can answer design questions. If documentation is thin we will write our understanding of the system back to you and ask you to confirm it — that step alone catches design-level bugs.
A single token contract is 24–48 hours. A typical dApp or mid-sized protocol runs one to two weeks. Large DeFi systems, L2s, bridges and ZK circuits are scoped per project after we have seen the code. We will give you a fixed timeline with the quote, not an estimate that moves.
Send the repository and a commit hash through the contact form, message @bugtester25 on Telegram, or book a 30-minute scoping call. 200+ protocols audited · $4B+ secured · 0 hacks post-audit. Prefer email? info@safeedges.in.