Olympix

Every minute spent defending previous findings is a minute not spent hunting for new vulnerabilities with potentially higher impact. Yet there's a deeper game theory element at play: Your intuition about limiting time for escalations is spot-on. High-performing hunters typically allocate fixed time blocks for escalation responses—perhaps 10-15% of their total hunting time—and ruthlessly stick to this budget. The expected value of a new critical finding (≈$50-100K) almost always outweighs the expected value of defending a moderate severity finding through the escalation process (≈$5-15K with uncertain outcome). What's often overlooked is the long-term reputational impact. Judges and projects track signal-to-noise ratios. A hunter who consistently submits valid reports without engaging in excessive escalations builds "reputation capital" that pays dividends in edge cases. One approach that balances these tensions is the "fire and filter" method: submit all reasonably valid findings, but only defend those that meet specific criteria (novel attack vectors, clear impact, high severity). This preserves hunting time while maintaining quality control.

Enhanced Audit Framework 1?? Pre-Audit Preparation ? Beyond studying the protocol, examine the broader ecosystem it interacts with. Vulnerabilities often exist at integration points. ? Review past exploits in similar protocols to identify pattern vulnerabilities that might apply. ? Assess economic attack vectors by analyzing incentive structures and game theory aspects. 2?? Technical Examination ? Create a comprehensive map of all privileged functions and access control mechanisms. ? Model all possible state transitions to identify edge cases where invariants might be violated. ? Identify where developers may have sacrificed security for gas efficiency. 3?? Advanced Testing Approaches ? For critical components, consider applying formal verification techniques. ? Test how protocol behavior might differ across various EVM-compatible chains. 4?? Collaborative Strategies ? Have team members swap sections they're auditing at the halfway point for fresh perspectives. ? Dedicate specific sessions where the entire team tries to break a particular component. ? Schedule targeted sessions with the development team to understand design decisions. 5?? Documentation and Reporting Best Practices ? Ensure consistent severity ratings by using standardized criteria. ? Document not just the vulnerability but realistic exploitation scenarios. ? Provide guidance on which issues should be addressed first based on risk exposure.

The pursuit of perfection is a trap. Complex systems (blockchains, cloud infra, DeFi protocols) are inherently unpredictable. The DAO hack and the Wormhole Bridge breaches were "obvious" in hindsight but invisible under pressure to ship. Human error is non-negotiable. Security is about failure recovery, not failure prevention. A 1% vulnerability in each layer doesn’t mean 3% risk—it creates combinatorial explosions. A $500M protocol with 10 attack vectors, each 99% secure, still has a ~10% chance of breach. ?????? "?????????????? ???????????? ????????????????" ?????????????????? ? What can’t be fixed post-deployment? (e.g., immutable contracts) → Audit obsessively. ? What is the asymmetric downside? (e.g., admin keys) → Distribute/eliminate. ? What’s time-sensitive? (e.g., bridge withdrawals) → Add delays/escape hatches.

language ≠ immunity. Move reduces risk, but lazy devs still write buggy code. Audits remain critical (see: Aptos & Sui hacks). The bigger lesson: Web3 needs languages that enforce security, not just enable it. Move is a leap, but adoption is slow. Ecosystem inertia (Solidity’s tooling, EVM dominance). Learning curves ≠ excuses for ignoring safer paradigms. If you’re building novel DeFi or asset-heavy protocols, Move’s resource model is worth the pivot. For forks? Maybe stick with Solidity.

???? ?????? ???????????? ????????????: When you absorb information from multiple sources - articles, podcasts, conversations - you start recognizing patterns that someone with limited exposure might miss. You develop a mental model where new concepts have proper context and existing knowledge to connect with. This approach is particularly effective in crypto/Web3 because: ? The space evolves so quickly that formal education can't keep pace. ? Many core concepts intersect multiple disciplines (cryptography, economics, game theory). ? The community itself generates valuable knowledge through discourse and experimentation. What makes the sponge method work isn't just volume, but diversity of inputs. Reading technical whitepapers gives you different insights than listening to founders discuss their vision or watching developers debug issues in real-time.

Successful security teams adopt an adversarial mindset. Rather than asking "does this work?", they constantly ask "how could this break?" Why this kills protocols: ? Approval phishing? “Users won’t sign random txs” → $60M drained. ? Slippage exploits? “LPs will set sane limits” → sandwich attacks go brrr. ? Gas-griefing? “No one would spam that function” → frontrun to oblivion. Fix the mindset: ? Formalize invariants—mathematically define what can’t happen, no matter user behavior. ? Test like a thief—scripts that mimic malicious MEV bots, arbitrageurs, and governance attackers. ? Adopt “negative thinking”—code for worst-case actions, not best-case assumptions.

?????????? ???????????????? ???????????????? ??????'?? ???????????? - ????'?? ??????????????????????????. Each audit: ? Provides a time-bounded snapshot of known vulnerabilities. ? Cannot guarantee the absence of remaining bugs. ? Often only examines a subset of attack vectors. Many successful protocols have undergone 3-5 separate audits before mainnet launch, each finding progressively more subtle issues. Projects like Uniswap Labs and AAVE have regular audits even years after deployment. For Web3 projects with significant TVL (Total Value Locked) aspirations, the security investment should follow a formula: ? Multiple independent audits from different firms. ? Comprehensive formal verification where feasible. ? Bug bounty programs scaled to potential exploit value. ? Continuous monitoring systems post-deployment.

????????????????: If you’re racing to be the “cheapest,” you’ll attract clients who see security as a checkbox, not a priority. They’ll haggle over code that guards millions in TVL. But “the best”? You’ll battle for projects where security is the product. Clients pay premiums, trust your judgment, and you set the terms. Why? Cheap audits = rushed reviews, ignored findings, and hacks that stain your rep. Premium positioning = rigorous deep dives, respected authority, and clients who want your edge. ?????? ??????: Your pricing filters your deal flow. Charge peanuts, get monkeys (and exploits). Build a moat of expertise, and high-value clients will find you.

Join me on March 10th at 6PM CET on an exciting panel on Smart Contract Security and On-Chain Fraud Prevention with AI alongside eminent personalities in the Web3 security space featuring Gal Sagie from Hypernative, moderated by P Misirov from Cantina. Excited to answer any query. Register here: https://lnkd.in/eF9nY3nJ

?? $??????,?????? ???????? ???? ?????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????? — ????????’?? ?????? ???? ?????????? ?????????? ???????? Last month alone, ?????????? ???????? ???????????????? ???????? $??????,?????? ???? ???????????????? ???????? ?????????? ???????? ???????? ???????????????????with proper security practices. Let’s break down what went wrong and how to fortify your protocols: 1??? ?????????? ($???????? ???????????????????? ????????????) | BNB Chain Innovation Root Cause: Missing reentrancy guard in???????????????????????????(). Lesson: Always use??????????????????????????modifiers?before?external calls. 2????????????? ?????? ($???????? ???????????? ???????????? ????????) | Ethereum Root Cause: Rewards paid twice in?_??????????????????????????????????????(). Lesson: Validate state changes?before?triggering payouts. 3????????????? ($????.???? ?????????? ??????????????) | BNB Chain Innovation Root Cause: Incorrect balance clearing in???????????????????????(). Lesson: Audit reward calculations with adversarial thinking. ?????? ???????? ?????????????? These hacks weren’t sophisticated — they were?basic oversights. Olympix?catches these flaws?before?deployment: ? Static analysis for systemic security risks. ? State transition simulations for reward logic. ? Gas optimization checks to prevent flash loan exploits. ???????? ???????????? ???????? ? Go to the VScode Marketplace, install the Olympix extension, and see how Olympix could’ve prevented these hacks. ? Audit your contracts with our free extension before deploying. Check-out our free VSCode Marketplace extension: https://lnkd.in/dJ9edTKm Read our breakdown of the recent security incidents in our newsletter: https://lnkd.in/gi__mAB9