L1 and L2 infrastructure audit
The chain itself, not just what runs on it.
What it is
Running your own chain or rollup means owning a class of risk that contract audits never touch: consensus safety and liveness, client implementation bugs, the economics that keep validators honest, and for a rollup, the sequencer and the escape hatch.
We review the layer everything else depends on, including the parts that only fail under adversarial conditions.
What we examine
- Consensus parameters and their safety and liveness implications.
- Client implementation review: state transition, mempool, p2p handling.
- Validator economics: staking, slashing, rewards, and whether attacks pay.
- Rollup specifics: sequencer powers, forced inclusion, escape hatches, proof systems.
- Data availability assumptions, stated plainly rather than assumed.
- Upgrade and governance mechanics for the chain itself.
- Node and RPC configuration, including what an operator exposes by default.
What you get
Findings across consensus, client, economics and operator configuration.
An explicit statement of the trust and liveness assumptions your design makes.
Attack costings: what a hostile validator or sequencer would have to spend.
A re-audit of your fixes, included.
How the engagement runs
- 01
Scope
Chain design, client, validator set and rollup architecture. Fixed quote.
- 02
Model
Safety, liveness and economic assumptions written down and challenged.
- 03
Review
Client code and parameters, tested under partition, halt and hostile stake.
- 04
Report
Findings with severity and attack cost, then verification of your fixes.
What we cover
Languages
- Solidity
- Vyper
- Rust
- Move
- Cairo
- Go
- TypeScript
- Huff
- Yul
Chains
- Ethereum
- Solana
- BNB Chain
- Polygon
- Avalanche
- Arbitrum
- Base
- TRON
- Optimism
- Cardano
- Polkadot
- Cosmos
- NEAR
- Aptos
- Sui
- TON
- Hedera
- Algorand
- Stellar
- Starknet
- ZKsync Era
- Linea
- Sei
- Sonic
- Scroll
- Mantle
- Injective
- Cronos
- Celo
- Gnosis
- Fantom
- Kaia
- Ronin
- Immutable
- Blast
- Berachain
- Monad
- Hyperliquid EVM
- Stacks
- Rootstock
- Kava
- Osmosis
- MultiversX
- Conflux
- Telos
- Theta
- Chiliz
- XDC Network
- Filecoin FVM
- Ontology
- WEMIX
- Fuel
- Taiko
- Polygon zkEVM
- BOB
- Fraxtal
- Mode
- ZetaChain
- Metis
- Manta Pacific
- IOTA EVM
- Neo X
- Unichain
- World Chain
- Soneium
- Abstract
- Ink
- Movement
- Plume
- Etherlink
- EOS
- Flow
- Zilliqa
- Harmony
- Moonbeam
- Astar
- Aurora
Not listed? Ask. If it runs smart contracts, we almost certainly review it.
Questions we get asked
We forked an existing client. Is that safer?
Safer than writing one, and still not safe. The findings in forked clients are almost always in the parameters that were changed and the upstream fixes that were never merged.
Do you review the sequencer for our rollup?
Yes, including what the sequencer can do to users and whether the forced-inclusion path genuinely works when the sequencer refuses to.
Can you review before mainnet?
That is the point. Consensus parameters are close to impossible to change once a live validator set depends on them.
Often bought with
Web3 and protocol audit
Line-by-line review of contracts, chain layer and upgrade paths, with proof-of-concept for every finding.
Cross-chain bridge audit
Message passing, proof verification and validator assumptions, on both sides of the bridge.
Penetration testing
Web, mobile, API, cloud and key infrastructure tested the way a real intruder would.
Tell us what you are building and when you launch. Fixed quote in 48 hours.
Get a fixed quote