A Berachain smart contract audit is a security review of code deployed to Berachain, carried out against the Ethereum Virtual Machine execution model and written in Solidity — covering both the bug classes shared across EVM Layer 1 systems and the failure modes specific to Berachain.
Berachain's Proof-of-Liquidity consensus ties validator rewards to protocol liquidity, which makes the incentive layer part of the attack surface: reward routing is something an attacker can try to capture.
On a Proof-of-Liquidity chain, emissions follow validator-directed reward vaults, so protocol design interacts with consensus incentives in ways that do not exist elsewhere. The questions become: who directs emissions, what does capturing that direction cost, and can rewards be farmed without providing the liquidity they are meant to reward?
We audit contracts in full and add a PoL-specific review: reward vault integration, emission routing, bribe and incentive mechanics, and the economics of capturing them.
Berachain runs on Ethereum Virtual Machine, so it inherits the bug classes below from every system in that family.
Berachain contracts are written in Solidity. See our Solidity audit methodology.
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.
Reward vault integration, emission routing and the economics of capturing that routing. It puts incentive design inside the security review rather than beside it.
Yes, so the contract review is a standard EVM review — with the PoL incentive surface added on top.
Yes: cost to direct emissions versus value extracted, and whether rewards can be farmed without supplying the liquidity they are meant to reward.
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.
Yes. Fix review is part of the engagement, not an upsell. We re-run the original proof of concept against your patched code and confirm the fix has not introduced a new path.
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.