Perp DEX Audit — A perpetual DEX audit reviews the derivatives engine — margin accounting, funding rates, mark price construction, liquidation and auto-deleveraging, and the insurance fund — to determine whether a trader can extract value from the protocol or leave it holding unbacked losses.
Perp DEXs combine the hardest parts of DeFi: continuous accounting, oracle dependence, adversarial market participants and a liquidation engine that must work fastest exactly when the chain is most congested. The failure modes are specific and repeatable — self-trading against your own liquidity, funding-rate manipulation, mark price divergence, and insurance funds sized for normal volatility rather than the event that actually happens.
We test the engine under adversarial conditions rather than average ones: what a well-capitalised trader can do with maximum leverage across correlated markets, what happens when the oracle lags the real market by two blocks, and whether ADL distributes losses the way the documentation claims.
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.
Yes. We simulate maximum-leverage positions across correlated markets, oracle lag, congestion that delays liquidations, and coordinated positioning designed to move funding — then report where the protocol ends up short.
Yes, and the trust boundary is the focus: what the matcher can do that it should not, what a user can prove if the matcher misbehaves, and what happens when it stops.
Against adversarial rather than historical scenarios: the worst simultaneous move across correlated markets with realistic liquidation delays. Historical VaR is not a security argument.
Yes. Incentive programmes are an attack surface — if risk-free volume earns rewards, someone will manufacture it, and that cost lands on the protocol.
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.