DePIN Audit — A DePIN audit reviews decentralised physical infrastructure networks — device identity and attestation, the proof that work was actually performed, the reward and slashing mechanics, and the oracle layer that brings physical-world data on-chain — with a focus on whether rewards can be earned without doing the work.
Every DePIN network answers one question: how does the chain know the device did what it claims? Everything else follows. If proof of work or proof of coverage can be simulated, the network pays for nothing, and the token inflates against no real service.
We review the attestation chain from hardware to contract, the economics of spoofing versus participating honestly, sybil resistance, and the governance that can change reward parameters — plus the practical question of what happens when a large operator behaves rationally rather than honestly.
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.
| Severity | What it means |
|---|---|
| Critical | Direct loss of funds or permanent freezing of assets, exploitable by any actor. |
| High | Loss of funds or protocol insolvency under realistic conditions, or requiring a privileged actor to misbehave. |
| Medium | Broken protocol behaviour, denial of service, or value leakage that does not directly drain the contract. |
| Low | Edge-case incorrectness with limited impact, or an issue requiring implausible preconditions. |
| Informational | Code quality, gas efficiency, documentation mismatch and defence-in-depth suggestions. |
Single token contract: starts from $999, report in 24–48 hours. dApp, GameFi or RWA project: starts from $2,999. DeFi protocol, L2 / rollup, Bridge, ZK circuit, AI agent / MCP: scoped per project after we have seen the code.
By building the cheapest spoofing setup we can and measuring what it earns. If simulated participation is profitable versus honest participation, the network has an economics problem regardless of the contract code.
We review identity, attestation and update integrity in the firmware. Physical tamper-resistance testing is a hardware lab exercise and out of scope, though we will flag where it matters.
Yes — cost per identity, whether witnesses can be captured by one operator, and whether location or capacity claims can be satisfied without the corresponding physical presence.
It is usually the weakest link and we treat it as such: who reports, what a false report achieves, whether there is a dispute mechanism, and what happens when reporting stops.
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.