Web3 is growing fast and so are the risks.
At SafetyBytes, we help projects launch securely by finding vulnerabilities before hackers do.
● Smart contract audits (EVM & non-EVM)
● Vulnerability assessments
● Blockchain security consulting
Whether you are building a DeFi protocol, NFT platform, or DAO, our team works with you to identify flaws, patch exploits, and ship with confidence.
Security isn’t a one-time thing. It’s a culture. And we are here to grow that culture across the ecosystem.
● Expert auditors
● Manual reviews + automated testing
● Threat modeling
Web3 isn’t safe by default. That’s why we exist.
Partner with us, your trusted smart contract security team.
📩 DM us to audit your protocol.
🔍 Audit Report Released
The audit report for @UniVoucher_com has been released!
The SafetyBytes team conducted a detailed review of one of their core smart contracts to ensure robust security and reliable performance.
📄 Read the full report: https://t.co/g8hEDmaBMU
Together, we’re making Web3 safer for everyone. ⚡
SafetyBytes 🤝 UniVoucher
We’re excited to announce our recent partnership with @UniVoucher_com !
Our team at SafetyBytes has completed a private security audit to help strengthen their protocol and ensure user safety.
Stay tuned for more updates and insights from the report. 🔒✨
We’re happy to share the results from the Malda contest on Sherlock!
Big thanks to @malda_xyz & @sherlockdefi for the opportunity, and to @AifosSi for judging 🛡️
You spend 80% of your time understanding what the code is supposed to do, 20% finding what it actually does wrong.
Most people think auditing is about spotting bugs. It's really about understanding intent vs implementation.
Personal auditing approach: Never dive straight into the deepest parts of the code.
Do multiple passes - each one going deeper than the last. Start broad, then narrow focus.
Trying to understand everything at once is a recipe for missing things.
I don’t think it’s necessary to charge a fee for submitting issues. Someone who has already won money from previous contests, or who already has funds, could easily submit 20 invalid issues and still waste the judges’ time.
In my opinion, it’s better to rely on the current threshold mechanism and use it to determine how many reports a user can submit. For example, if a user has a low threshold, they could be limited to submitting only 2–3 issues. As their threshold improves, their submission limit could increase accordingly.
Please stop submitting poorly written reports by ChatGPT without even trying to see if it is valid. You are wasting everybody's time!
Have seen reports that genuinely make up and change core functionality to introduce a bug that doesn't exist.😭
🚨 Too often audit findings get downgraded by developers who do not fully understand the security impact
Founders should hire engineers with a security mindset not just speed and feature delivery
One insecure line of code can cost millions 🛡️
Static analysis tools are great at finding what they're programmed to find.
But they'll never catch the economic exploit hiding in your reward calculation logic.
Human creativity beats automated scanning every time.
Every time you think "this code is too complex to understand" - that's your brain telling you to slow down, not skip it.
Complex code hides the best vulnerabilities. If it's confusing you, it's probably confusing the developer too!
Complexity breeds bugs.