Tokenized Securities Audit — A tokenized securities audit is a security review of a security token and the platform issuing it, focused on the controls that make the token a compliant instrument — transfer restrictions, investor eligibility gating, cap-table integrity, corporate actions, forced transfer and recovery powers — alongside the ordinary smart contract risks, because for a regulated issuer an unenforceable restriction is as serious as a stolen balance.
A tokenized security is not an ordinary token with a legal wrapper bolted on. Its entire value depends on the on-chain representation staying consistent with the off-chain register at every moment: the same holders, the same balances, the same entitlements, and no transfer the issuer was not permitted to allow. That gives a security token a failure mode ordinary tokens do not have — a transfer that succeeds when it should have been blocked is a compliance breach and a reconciliation problem even though no funds were stolen.
We audit both halves. On-chain: the transfer-restriction engine and every path that can move a balance around it, the eligibility and whitelist model, lock-ups and vesting, partition or tranche logic, corporate actions such as dividends, splits and redemptions, and the privileged powers a transfer agent holds — forced transfer, freeze, burn and recovery of lost holdings. Off-chain: the identity and eligibility oracle, the register reconciliation process, the custody model for issuer keys, and the operational controls around anyone who can exercise those privileged powers.
Those powers deserve specific attention. A regulated instrument usually must support forced transfer and recovery, which means the contract necessarily contains a function that moves someone else's assets. That is not a finding on its own — but the authority behind it, the approval path, the audit trail and the blast radius if that key is compromised absolutely are, and they are where we spend disproportionate time.
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.
A security review of a security token and its issuing platform covering both ordinary smart contract risk and the compliance-critical controls: transfer restrictions, investor eligibility, cap-table integrity, corporate actions, and the privileged powers a transfer agent holds.
They overlap and are often bought together. An RWA audit centres on the link between a token and the asset backing it — custody, attestation, valuation and redemption. A tokenized securities audit centres on the token being a regulated instrument: who may hold it, who may transfer it to whom, and whether the register stays true. Issuers of tokenized funds, bonds and equity usually need both.
The ERC-1400 family, ERC-3643 (T-REX), ERC-1404, and bespoke permissioned designs — including implementations on permissioned or private chains, where the restriction model is frequently enforced in a way the standard does not anticipate.
Not by itself — regulated instruments usually need one. What we review is the authority behind it: approval path, timelock, audit trail, key custody, and what an attacker gains by compromising that role. A forced-transfer power behind a single hot key is a critical finding regardless of how correct the code is.
Yes. Engagements routinely run under NDA with evidence packages written for internal audit, external auditors, counterparties and regulators, and findings mapped to the control register your compliance team already maintains.
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.