Apr 09, 2025
The Problem with “Security After Development”
Most teams treat audits like a silver bullet, something you do at the end to feel safe. But smart contracts are unforgiving. A critical bug caught after launch can cost millions.
Continuous reviews flip the script. Instead of reviewing everything at once, security experts review code in real time, as pull requests are made. It’s faster, more effective, and sets you up for a smooth and successful audit later.
A poorly prepared codebase can severely derail both private and competitive audits. When auditors are forced to wade through inconsistent logic, missing comments, or redundant code, valuable time is wasted just trying to understand what the contract is supposed to do, let alone verifying its security. Instead of diving into deeper, protocol-specific risks, auditors are stuck flagging low-hanging issues that should have been caught in development. This not only limits the depth of the audit but can also lead to incomplete coverage, rushed reviews, or costly audit extensions. In competitive audits especially, where time is capped and findings are rewarded, a messy codebase reduces the chance of meaningful discoveries, and can leave critical vulnerabilities undetected.
When a codebase is riddled with bugs and vulnerabilities, it doesn’t just affect the audit, it can seriously delay your entire launch timeline. Each critical issue flagged by auditors often requires a patch, retesting, and in many cases, a full re-review. This creates a loop of fixes and follow-ups that can drag on for weeks. In high-stakes projects like DeFi or infrastructure protocols, even small logic flaws can require major architectural changes. If security wasn’t baked in from the start, teams end up scrambling to rewrite core components under pressure, risking more mistakes. Which will lead to a postponed launch, or worse: launching insecurely and dealing with the consequences later.
This is where continuous code review makes all the difference. By integrating security reviews into every pull request, teams can catch vulnerabilities early, while the code is still fresh, and the cost to fix is low. Instead of letting issues pile up for auditors to discover later, continuous reviews ensure that security and correctness evolve alongside the codebase. This results in cleaner, well-documented logic, fewer refactors, and a much shorter audit cycle. Teams that adopt this approach often find that their final audit becomes a formality with fewer critical findings, smoother communication with auditors, and no last-minute surprises that could delay launch.
While internal developers know the code best, they often lack the attacker mindset or deep experience with real-world exploits that seasoned auditors bring. Hiring an external auditor from a reputable firm to handle continuous reviews brings fresh eyes, unbiased perspective, and battle-tested security expertise into the development process. These auditors aren’t just looking for obvious bugs, they’re trained to spot subtle vulnerabilities, broken assumptions, and dangerous edge cases that internal teams might overlook. More importantly, they stay up to date with the latest attack techniques, tooling, and patterns across the ecosystem.
Bringing in an external auditor for ongoing reviews is also far more cost-effective than hiring a full-time, in-house security researcher. Top-tier smart contract security engineers are in extremely high demand, with salaries that can easily exceed six figures. If you can even find and retain one. In contrast, working with an auditing firm gives you flexible access to specialized talent, without the overhead of recruitment, onboarding, and long-term employment costs. You pay only for the time and scope you need, whether that’s a few hours a week or a deeper engagement across a product cycle. Also you’re gaining access to a broader team, peer-reviewed insights, and up-to-date expertise across the entire Web3 landscape.
