A ZetaChain smart contract audit is a security review of code deployed to ZetaChain, carried out against the Cosmos SDK application chain execution model and written in Go / Solidity — covering both the bug classes shared across Cosmos SDK / IBC systems and the failure modes specific to ZetaChain.
ZetaChain's omnichain model means a contract can hold and move assets on chains it does not run on. That makes observer and TSS assumptions part of every application's threat model, not just the protocol's.
Cross-chain messaging via observers and threshold signatures introduces trust that application developers frequently do not model: what a colluding observer subset can assert, what happens to an in-flight message when a connected chain reorgs, and what the revert path does with the funds.
We review the omnichain contract surface, cross-chain message and revert handling, gas and fee accounting across chains, and the assumptions your application makes about observer honesty.
ZetaChain runs on Cosmos SDK application chain, so it inherits the bug classes below from every system in that family.
ZetaChain contracts are written in Go / 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.
The trust boundary. Your contract acts on assertions about other chains, so the audit covers what those assertions rely on — observers, threshold signatures, reorg handling — and what your revert path does with funds when something fails.
Yes, and they are a common source of findings: forced failures that leave funds in an unexpected place are the omnichain equivalent of a stuck bridge transfer.
Yes for the contract logic, with the cross-chain surface added on top.
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.