alix40 (@AliX__40) header
alix40 (@AliX__40) profile picture

Making Solo Audits More Accessible 👉 @soloauditcom

onchain
Joined May 2022
1. hey guys 👋 🛡️Introducing SoloAudit — a public-good platform to make solo audits accessible for every Web3 project. We’re live 👇 soloaudit.com
19
35
48
319
74,556
Your newest AI security engineer has just arrived. Cygent isn't just an AI bug scanner; it learns your codebase, works alongside your team, and writes the PRs to fix them. - Finds bugs - Gets on calls - Schedules tasks - Proactive security advice All in your chat interface đź§µ
26
43
10
228
39,338
As of today, BattleChain testnet is LIVE. The pre-mainnet, post-testnet blockchain, where whitehats legally attack your smart contracts before they reach production. Deploy. Get attacked. Ship stronger. Here's why we built it, what it is, and how you can get involved đź§µ
67
102
89
477
124,231
alix40 retweeted
Top 10 Ways Soroban Contracts Get Hacked👇: (if your contract has these patterns, make sure to remediate them as soon as possible)
2
3
1
13
1,629
TL;DR - 2024 (The Golden Era): Peak volume, massive prize pools, and high-quality submissions. - The Crash: Competition forced a "race to the bottom." Platforms slashed fees and introduced conditional pots to survive. - The Shift: Platforms pivoted to private audits for profit; Top Researchers (SRs) left public contests for stable private work.
The Death of the Audit Contest? A 2025 Retrospective I will always be thankful for audit contest companies. They pioneered the open-sourcing of Web3 security knowledge, allowing security researchers (SRs) like myself to improve at a fast and consistent pace. However, looking back from 2025, it is clear that the landscape has shifted dramatically. 2024: The Golden Era 2024 was undoubtedly the best year in the history of Web3 audit contests. The volume of opportunities was unprecedented; almost every month featured a million-dollar prize pool, often with a dozen other contests running in parallel. The hype was strong, and the space was filled with highly trained competitors. During this time, the number of submissions was manageable, and "report spam" was significantly lower than what we see today. However, 2024 was also the beginning of the end for the traditional contest model. The Profitability Problem In the early days (pioneered by Code4rena), audit contest platforms typically charged a 40% margin on the total audit pot. Despite these large margins, most companies were burning through VC cash and failing to turn a profit. They were in "growth mode," prioritizing market share over sustainability. As the model's initial success became visible, it inspired a wave of new competitors. These companies introduced new models or used existing relationships with protocols to sell audits. This fierce competition was a win for protocols—they received high-coverage, deep-vulnerability reports as SRs competed to break their code—but it forced contest platforms into a "race to the bottom" on pricing. The Shift in Incentives To lower costs for clients, platforms had two options: - Reduce the SR Prize Pool: This led to "conditional pots" and custom rules that favored the client (e.g., defining a "High" severity only if >50% of TVL could be stolen). - Reduce Platform Fees: Platform fees shrank to 10%–20%, which is too low to sustain long-term growth or quality operations. This created two major shifts: For Platforms: They pivoted to private audits, which require less effort to manage and offer healthier margins. For SRs: The most capable researchers with personal brands grew tired of "unlocked" pots—where they could work for a month and earn $0 because a specific threshold wasn't met. These top-tier researchers moved to private auditing as freelancers or by joining major firms. The State of the Market in 2025 Today, most platforms are growing their profits by running fewer public contests and focusing heavily on the private/team audit sector. It no longer makes sense for them to sell a contest when a private audit is more efficient and profitable. For SRs, the ecosystem feels broken. The top talent has moved to private work, while public contests are increasingly flooded with low-quality spam reports fueled by the 2024 hype and AI-generated submissions. The original incentive alignment between SRs, protocols, and platforms has fractured. The Path Forward I want the "Golden Era" of audit contests to reemerge. To do this, we must fix the incentives: Healthy Margins: Platforms need to make enough profit to prioritize contests again. SR-Friendly Terms: We must enforce terms that protect researchers' time and attract top talent back to the public arena. Value for Protocols: By attracting the best researchers, protocols will once again receive the substantial security value that only a competitive environment can provide. I have avoided naming specific companies because my goal isn't to create drama or attack anyone. These thoughts are based on my own analysis and data from friends in the industry. My only goal is to propose a way for our space to innovate and thrive once more.
1
29
2,175
The Death of the Audit Contest? A 2025 Retrospective I will always be thankful for audit contest companies. They pioneered the open-sourcing of Web3 security knowledge, allowing security researchers (SRs) like myself to improve at a fast and consistent pace. However, looking back from 2025, it is clear that the landscape has shifted dramatically. 2024: The Golden Era 2024 was undoubtedly the best year in the history of Web3 audit contests. The volume of opportunities was unprecedented; almost every month featured a million-dollar prize pool, often with a dozen other contests running in parallel. The hype was strong, and the space was filled with highly trained competitors. During this time, the number of submissions was manageable, and "report spam" was significantly lower than what we see today. However, 2024 was also the beginning of the end for the traditional contest model. The Profitability Problem In the early days (pioneered by Code4rena), audit contest platforms typically charged a 40% margin on the total audit pot. Despite these large margins, most companies were burning through VC cash and failing to turn a profit. They were in "growth mode," prioritizing market share over sustainability. As the model's initial success became visible, it inspired a wave of new competitors. These companies introduced new models or used existing relationships with protocols to sell audits. This fierce competition was a win for protocols—they received high-coverage, deep-vulnerability reports as SRs competed to break their code—but it forced contest platforms into a "race to the bottom" on pricing. The Shift in Incentives To lower costs for clients, platforms had two options: - Reduce the SR Prize Pool: This led to "conditional pots" and custom rules that favored the client (e.g., defining a "High" severity only if >50% of TVL could be stolen). - Reduce Platform Fees: Platform fees shrank to 10%–20%, which is too low to sustain long-term growth or quality operations. This created two major shifts: For Platforms: They pivoted to private audits, which require less effort to manage and offer healthier margins. For SRs: The most capable researchers with personal brands grew tired of "unlocked" pots—where they could work for a month and earn $0 because a specific threshold wasn't met. These top-tier researchers moved to private auditing as freelancers or by joining major firms. The State of the Market in 2025 Today, most platforms are growing their profits by running fewer public contests and focusing heavily on the private/team audit sector. It no longer makes sense for them to sell a contest when a private audit is more efficient and profitable. For SRs, the ecosystem feels broken. The top talent has moved to private work, while public contests are increasingly flooded with low-quality spam reports fueled by the 2024 hype and AI-generated submissions. The original incentive alignment between SRs, protocols, and platforms has fractured. The Path Forward I want the "Golden Era" of audit contests to reemerge. To do this, we must fix the incentives: Healthy Margins: Platforms need to make enough profit to prioritize contests again. SR-Friendly Terms: We must enforce terms that protect researchers' time and attract top talent back to the public arena. Value for Protocols: By attracting the best researchers, protocols will once again receive the substantial security value that only a competitive environment can provide. I have avoided naming specific companies because my goal isn't to create drama or attack anyone. These thoughts are based on my own analysis and data from friends in the industry. My only goal is to propose a way for our space to innovate and thrive once more.
8
13
3
140
12,824
The Death of the Audit Contest? A 2025 Retrospective I will always be thankful for audit contest companies. They pioneered the open-sourcing of Web3 security knowledge, allowing security researchers (SRs) like myself to improve at a fast and consistent pace. However, looking back from 2025, it is clear that the landscape has shifted dramatically. 2024: The Golden Era 2024 was undoubtedly the best year in the history of Web3 audit contests. The volume of opportunities was unprecedented; almost every month featured a million-dollar prize pool, often with a dozen other contests running in parallel. The hype was strong, and the space was filled with highly trained competitors. During this time, the number of submissions was manageable, and "report spam" was significantly lower than what we see today. However, 2024 was also the beginning of the end for the traditional contest model. The Profitability Problem In the early days (pioneered by Code4rena), audit contest platforms typically charged a 40% margin on the total audit pot. Despite these large margins, most companies were burning through VC cash and failing to turn a profit. They were in "growth mode," prioritizing market share over sustainability. As the model's initial success became visible, it inspired a wave of new competitors. These companies introduced new models or used existing relationships with protocols to sell audits. This fierce competition was a win for protocols—they received high-coverage, deep-vulnerability reports as SRs competed to break their code—but it forced contest platforms into a "race to the bottom" on pricing. The Shift in Incentives To lower costs for clients, platforms had two options: - Reduce the SR Prize Pool: This led to "conditional pots" and custom rules that favored the client (e.g., defining a "High" severity only if >50% of TVL could be stolen). - Reduce Platform Fees: Platform fees shrank to 10%–20%, which is too low to sustain long-term growth or quality operations. This created two major shifts: For Platforms: They pivoted to private audits, which require less effort to manage and offer healthier margins. For SRs: The most capable researchers with personal brands grew tired of "unlocked" pots—where they could work for a month and earn $0 because a specific threshold wasn't met. These top-tier researchers moved to private auditing as freelancers or by joining major firms. The State of the Market in 2025 Today, most platforms are growing their profits by running fewer public contests and focusing heavily on the private/team audit sector. It no longer makes sense for them to sell a contest when a private audit is more efficient and profitable. For SRs, the ecosystem feels broken. The top talent has moved to private work, while public contests are increasingly flooded with low-quality spam reports fueled by the 2024 hype and AI-generated submissions. The original incentive alignment between SRs, protocols, and platforms has fractured. The Path Forward I want the "Golden Era" of audit contests to reemerge. To do this, we must fix the incentives: Healthy Margins: Platforms need to make enough profit to prioritize contests again. SR-Friendly Terms: We must enforce terms that protect researchers' time and attract top talent back to the public arena. Value for Protocols: By attracting the best researchers, protocols will once again receive the substantial security value that only a competitive environment can provide. I have avoided naming specific companies because my goal isn't to create drama or attack anyone. These thoughts are based on my own analysis and data from friends in the industry. My only goal is to propose a way for our space to innovate and thrive once more.
8
13
3
140
12,824
I haven't written any long-form content in a while (probably a year). I'll get back to it in the coming days, as I had a lot of fun doing it. Expect some new good content in a couple of days 🔥
2
26
1,326
🚨Trust Wallet (chrome extension v2.68) got hacked leading to a loss of more than $7 million. It's a result of malicious backdoor code. Here's the analysis👇:
We’ve identified a security incident affecting Trust Wallet Browser Extension version 2.68 only. Users with Browser Extension 2.68 should disable and upgrade to 2.69. Please refer to the official Chrome Webstore link here: chrome.google.com/webstore/d… Please note: Mobile-only users and all other browser extension versions are not impacted. We understand how concerning this is and our team is actively working on the issue. We’ll keep sharing updates as soon as possible.
1
4
8
1,028
What I meant by "contest dead in 2025" is it hitting market bottom, so to speak. I think the concept of contests isn't dying any time soon. Contest models might need to evolve, or maybe the market needs to adapt.
Replying to @AliX__40
Contests aren’t dead yet, phases or a month or two where there’s little contests happen a lot , and has happened around the same times the last two years People are afraid of anything nowadays 🤷🏻‍♀️
12
1,491
I knew contests were going to die in 2025, from the moment everybody thought they would make $1M at the start of the year.
6
59
4,903
ngli spent too much time reading the aave dao vs labs drama.
2
18
1,397
Great article by @0xPrince analyzing the current state of fixed vs. variable lending/borrowing in DeFi. These are the points I found most interesting, with some thoughts: - Nature of collateral: DeFi collateral is highly liquid (e.g., ETH, BTC, USDC on DEXs/CEXs) vs. illiquid real-world assets (e.g., a house requiring buyers). This quick, frictionless liquidation makes variable rates more attractive to lenders—they get flexibility in exchange for avoiding maturity locks on fixed rates. - State of the industry: Crypto is inherently high-risk and volatile, unlike more predictable assets like real estate. Users borrowing against (or shorting) volatile assets highly value the option to adjust positions quickly. That ~1.5% extra interest premium for fixed rates (as mentioned in the article) often isn't worth being locked in—especially when it means missing a pump (sell high) or getting wrecked in a crash (can't exit early). Flexibility wins in this environment.
18
2,329
Last Call! We’re looking for highly motivated developers to join us in building something truly important for the Web3 world.
đź”’We're hiring developers! Valkyri is dedicated to building security toolsets & frameworks that matter for Web3 Security Space. Technical Requirements: - Golang - Frontend, UI/UX is a plus Interested? DM or email - [email protected]
2
4
30
4,784