Blockchain Technology
ByAUJay
Summary: In 2025–2026, “smart contract audit,” “crypto audit,” and “smart contract security audit” mean different budgets, deliverables, and risk reductions. This guide quantifies current market prices (engineer‑week rates, contest prize pools, SOC 2/ISO costs, PoR realities), shows where each dollar actually reduces risk, and gives practical budgeting templates and trade‑offs for founders and enterprise buyers.
Smart Contract Audit Cost vs Crypto Audit Cost vs Smart Contract Security Audit Trade‑offs
Decision‑makers often hear three similar terms quoted with wildly different numbers: smart contract audit, crypto audit, and smart contract security audit. They are not interchangeable. Below we map the real 2025–2026 price points, what you get for each, and where to spend the next dollar for the highest marginal risk reduction.
TL;DR for buyers
- Smart contract audit (code review of on‑chain programs) pricing has reliable public anchors: Runtime Verification charges $20,000 per auditor‑week with a quality floor of 3 weeks per 1,000 LOC; OpenZeppelin disclosed a 24‑week, $554,400 retainer; Certora priced a dedicated 4.5‑FTE formal‑verification team at $2.39M/year for Aave v4. (runtimeverification.com)
- “Crypto audit” in Web2 terms usually means SOC 2, ISO 27001, pentesting, and sometimes Proof‑of‑Reserves (PoR) attestations. SOC 2 Type II typically runs $30k–$150k; ISO 27001 external audits often $12k–$25k for mid‑size firms; web app/API pentests run $5k–$30k each. PoR is not a financial audit and Big Four participation remains inconsistent, though Tether opened talks with a Big Four in March 2025. (sprinto.com)
- Contest‑style audits (Code4rena, Sherlock) are budgeted as prize pools, not day rates: recent pools range from ~$73k–$203k, with outliers at $500k (Monad) and $1.35M (MakerDAO x Sherlock). (outposts.io)
- Continuous monitoring/ops isn’t free: Forta’s network introduced paid subscriptions (General Plan: 250 FORT/month; premium feeds like Scam Detector are individually priced, e.g., $899/month). OpenZeppelin is sunsetting its hosted Defender by July 1, 2026, pushing teams toward open‑source/self‑hosted Monitor/Relayer. (docs.forta.network)
- The risk backdrop justifies real spend: 2025 thefts topped ~$3.4B, with a $1.5B Bybit incident and DPRK‑linked actors driving a record $2.02B; personal wallet compromises surged to 158k incidents. (chainalysis.com)
First, align on vocabulary
- Smart contract audit
- A manual, in‑depth security review of on‑chain program logic (Solidity, Vyper, Rust, Cairo, Move). Deliverables: findings report, severity ratings, fix review. Often scoped by LOC and complexity. Public price anchors exist. (runtimeverification.com)
- Crypto audit (off‑chain/organizational)
- Web2 security and assurance for crypto businesses: SOC 2, ISO 27001, penetration tests, cloud/config reviews, and sometimes Proof‑of‑Reserves attestations. These reduce organizational/operational risk, not protocol‑logic risk. PoR is an attestation, not a PCAOB audit. (sprinto.com)
- Smart contract security audit program
- A layered approach: code audits + contest audits + bug bounties + continuous monitoring + incident response + optional insurance/coverage + formal verification for invariants. This is how Tier‑1 protocols buy risk down. (docs.sherlock.xyz)
What the market actually pays (2025–2026)
- Engineer‑week / retainer models (top‑tier boutiques and FV teams)
- Runtime Verification: $20,000/week; minimum 3 weeks per 1,000 LOC for consistent quality. A 2,500 LOC DeFi core commonly scopes 7–9 weeks ($140k–$180k) pre re‑audit. (runtimeverification.com)
- OpenZeppelin retainer disclosed in Venus governance: 24 weeks over
6 months for $554,400 ($23.1k/week). Useful as a rate anchor for continuous audit engagements. (community.venus.io) - Certora for Aave v4 (2025 proposal): $2.39M for 4.5 FTEs; published rate $780k per FV FTE/year. This is what a dedicated, formal‑verification‑heavy program costs at the very top end. (governance.aave.com)
- Fixed‑fee project quotes (mid‑market)
- Neutral benchmarks (editorial): simple contracts <$10k, medium $10k–$50k, complex DeFi $50k–$100k+. Multiple commercial guides cluster similarly. Treat these as starting ranges, not ceilings. (techtarget.com)
- Competitive audit contests (prize‑pool economics)
- Code4rena examples (2025): $73k (Sequence), $103,250 (GTE Perps), $150k (Starknet), $203.5k (Solana Foundation), and a record $500k (Monad). Sponsors pay the pool (+ platform/judging). (outposts.io)
- Sherlock: MakerDAO’s contest hit $1.35M (2024). Sherlock also ties audits to optional on‑chain coverage. (cointelegraph.com)
- Bug bounty budgets (post‑launch)
- Immunefi guidelines: set critical max 5–10% of funds‑at‑risk; minimums (critical) often $10k–$50k; plan a total bounty budget 2–3× your max critical to absorb bursts. Programs from major protocols (e.g., Aave) disclose $50k–$1M critical ranges. (immunefisupport.zendesk.com)
- Continuous monitoring and response
- Forta Network subscriptions: General Plan priced at 250 FORT/month (access to 99%+ bots); premium feeds (e.g., Scam Detector) priced individually (e.g., $899/month) and paid on‑chain; unlimited API calls. (docs.forta.network)
- OpenZeppelin Defender: hosted service in maintenance/sunset; migrate to open‑source Monitor/Relayer before July 1, 2026. Budget for self‑hosting/ops instead of SaaS fees. (blog.openzeppelin.com)
- “Crypto audit” (organizational) cost anchors
- SOC 2: startups typically spend $20k–$60k overall; Type II audits frequently $30k–$150k depending on scope. (sprinto.com)
- ISO 27001: certification body fees commonly ~$12k–$25k for mid‑size, with total program outlays $50k–$100k including internal/consulting. (tracynar.com)
- Pentesting: web/app/API commonly $5k–$30k per test; mobile $7k–$35k; cloud $10k–$50k+; red team $30k–$100k+. (cycognito.com)
- Proof‑of‑Reserves: remains an attestation snapshot, not an audit; PCAOB warns PoR reports provide limited assurance, while Big Four participation is inconsistent (Mazars paused 2022; Tether opened Big Four talks Mar 21, 2025). Budgeting varies by firm/scope and is best treated as PR/comms plus assurance optics, not balance‑sheet audit. (nysscpa.org)
What are you really buying? Coverage vs speed vs assurance
- Traditional audit (engineer‑weeks)
- Pros: deep manual reasoning, design review, fix‑review cycles, steady communication; strong assurance for listings/integrations.
- Cons: lead times; cost scales with complexity; fresh‑eyes effect declines across iterations.
- Competitive audit contest
- Pros: many eyes, diverse heuristics, quick wall‑clock; scales interest with prize size; transparent public reports.
- Cons: triage burden; coverage can be uneven for complex invariants; not a substitute for architectural review.
- Formal verification (FV)
- Pros: machine‑checked properties for critical invariants (no inflation, no bad debt beyond X, capped mint, etc.); best at preventing catastrophic logic failures.
- Cons: high specialization and FTE‑level cost; requires property design and refactoring; not economical for every module. (governance.aave.com)
- Monitoring and response
- Pros: detects live threats (pauses, anomalous mints, governance actions, MEV patterns), shortens mean‑time‑to‑mitigation; cheap relative to TVL.
- Cons: requires playbooks, alert tuning, and secure signers; SaaS options shifting to self‑hosted. (docs.forta.network)
Practical synthesis we see working in 2025–2026 for anything >$5M TVL:
- Architect/design review + manual audit by a named team
- Competitive audit to harvest “many‑eyes” bugs
- Fix/re‑audit loop with a commit freeze and diff‑based verification
- Production bug bounty with max critical tied to TVL (5–10%)
- Forta/Monitor rules plus on‑call responders with tested runbooks
- Optional FV on the truly system‑critical properties (immunefisupport.zendesk.com)
Budgeting by scenario (use these as starting templates)
- Standard ERC‑20 with vesting and access control (~500–1,000 SLOC)
- Manual audit: $10k–$20k (tier‑2 firm)
- Optional contest: $15k–$30k pool
- Bug bounty: max critical $25k–$50k (or 5–10% FAR if small)
- Monitoring: Forta General Plan (250 FORT/mo) or self‑hosted OZ Monitor; minimal ops time
Why: low FAR, standard libraries; prioritize speed and clean report for listings. (7blocklabs.com)
- Mid‑complexity staking/gov module (~2–3k SLOC, oracles, UUPS)
- Manual audit: $40k–$80k (tier‑1/2)
- Contest: $75k–$150k pool (attract seniors)
- Bug bounty: max critical 5–10% FAR; total budget 2–3× max critical
- Monitoring: Forta + incident runbooks; require signer hygiene and pause‑switch drills
Why: elevated complexity/economic risk; dual‑track audit yields better marginal coverage. (outposts.io)
- DeFi primitive (AMM/lending) with external integrations (~2.5–5k SLOC)
- Engineer‑weeks: 7–9 wks baseline ($140k–$180k) plus re‑audits
- Contest: $150k–$300k pool (or more for novel math)
- FV: targeted properties budgeted as FTE slices or retainer
- Bounty: 5–10% FAR policy; formal triage w/ Immunefi; large max critical
- Monitoring: premium feeds (e.g., Scam Detector) + custom rules; signed emergency powers tested quarterly
Why: logic and integration surface dominate risk; monitoring reduces blast radius. (runtimeverification.com)
- Cross‑chain bridge or enterprise‑grade, multi‑chain protocol
- Manual + FV retainers: high six to low seven figures/year (e.g., dedicated FV team rates)
- Multiple contests across components: $200k–$1M+ total prize pools over phases
- Bounty: very high caps (aligned to liquidity), staged by deployment phase
- Monitoring: org‑wide alerting, key management audits, tabletop incident drills
Why: bridge/interop failures are tail‑risk heavy; spend follows catastrophic loss prevention. (governance.aave.com)
- Centralized exchange/crypto business (non‑protocol)
- SOC 2 Type II: $30k–$150k (audit fees often $20k–$60k)
- ISO 27001 certification: audit body ~$12k–$25k; full program $50k–$100k+
- Pentests: web/API/mobile/cloud individually $5k–$50k; red team $30k–$100k+
- PoR attestation: variable; remember it’s not a PCAOB audit and is limited assurance
Why: customer/institutional trust and partner requirements; don’t conflate with code audits. (sprinto.com)
Where not to skimp in 2026
- Economic and permissions invariants: Either prove them (FV) or torture‑test them (Foundry invariants, Echidna). Echidna 2.x can fuzz on chain state; combine Slither + property fuzzing to trap “can’t‑happen” branches. (blog.trailofbits.com)
- Live monitoring: Subscribe to Forta General Plan and relevant premium feeds; wire alerts to responders; rehearse pauses/upgrades on testnets. (docs.forta.network)
- Bounties with real upside: Set max critical as % of FAR and reserve 2–3× max to handle clusters; this shifts incentives at the margin. (immunefisupport.zendesk.com)
The 2025–2026 risk backdrop (why this budget is rational)
- Stolen funds exceeded $3.4B in 2025; DPRK‑linked actors set a record $2.02B, while a single Bybit incident hit $1.5B; personal wallet compromises reached 158k incidents affecting at least 80k victims. Large outliers now account for the majority of annual losses. (chainalysis.com)
- DeFi hack losses were more suppressed than in 2021–2022, but centralized services and personal wallets remain high‑impact targets; invest proportionally in off‑chain controls and key management if you’re a CeFi/hybrid. (chainalysis.com)
Emerging best practices we recommend baking into SOWs
- Commit‑hash discipline: freeze scope at a commit; any diff requires re‑audit on the diff and re‑running properties. Auditors that enforce this will look “expensive” but save you incident costs later.
- Property‑driven testing before audit: ship Foundry invariants and Echidna assertions with your repo; auditors spend time breaking your properties instead of writing them. (blog.trailofbits.com)
- Dual‑track reviews: one traditional audit plus a competitive contest sized to attract seniors ($100k+ pools correlate with stronger coverage on complex systems). (outposts.io)
- Fix‑review SLAs and re‑audit budgets: insist on explicit fix cycles and re‑audit line items in the quote to avoid rushed mainnet pushes. Neutral ranges (simple <$10k; medium $10k–$50k; complex $50k–$100k+) help benchmark. (techtarget.com)
- Monitoring runbooks: subscribe to Forta; define who pauses, who messages users, and how keys are rotated; test quarterly. Transition off hosted Defender ahead of July 1, 2026. (docs.forta.network)
- Bounty architecture: set Immunefi‑aligned max critical; publish severity table; pre‑commit to payout timelines; avoid overlap with active audits to reduce dupes. (immunefisupport.zendesk.com)
- Optional coverage/insurance: Sherlock’s coverage premiums have been modeled as a % of TVL with program changes; understand caps, exclusions, underwriting conditions (often requires an audit contest and fix review). (threesigma.xyz)
Trade‑offs table (in words)
- Speed vs depth: Contests are fast to run and surface many issues; engineer‑week audits and FV dig deeper into design invariants and systemic risks.
- Predictability vs outcomes: Fixed fees give invoice certainty; per‑week and contest models better align spend with real effort/findings but vary more.
- One‑off vs continuous: A single pre‑launch audit catches a lot but won’t save you from post‑launch integration drift; monitoring and bounties reduce mean‑time‑to‑mitigation.
- Optics vs assurance: PoR and glossy badges reassure users, but they don’t protect protocol logic. Allocate PR budgets separately from real risk‑reduction budgets, and don’t substitute SOC 2 for a protocol audit. (nysscpa.org)
Concrete RFP language you can re‑use
- Require a named lead, methodology, and weekly time reports; ask for toolchain (Slither, Echidna, Foundry invariants) and expected coverage maps. (github.com)
- Scope by critical invariants, not just LOC: e.g., “no under‑collateralized borrows,” “no mint beyond cap,” “no unbounded interest growth.” Ask for which properties will be proven vs fuzz‑validated. (governance.aave.com)
- Mandate a fix‑review pass and a short diff‑audit after remediation; time‑box delivery windows and escalation paths.
- Plan a public contest after the private audit for the same commit plus bug‑bounty go‑live on T+7. (outposts.io)
Putting it all together: example allocation at $250k security budget (DeFi, new launch)
- $120k engineer‑weeks (7–8 weeks, 2 auditors) with fix review. (runtimeverification.com)
- $100k contest pool targeted at seniors; public report. (outposts.io)
- $20k initial bounty reserve; policy pegs max critical at 5–10% FAR with program reserve 2–3× max (top‑ups when TVL grows). (immunefisupport.zendesk.com)
- Forta General Plan + one premium feed ($899/mo) for the first year; playbooks and drills. (docs.forta.network)
- Option: carve out $10k–$20k for FV on a single make‑or‑break invariant (liquidation math or debt accounting) as a pilot toward a larger FV retainer later. (governance.aave.com)
This mix maximizes coverage of catastrophic failures and reduces time‑to‑mitigation, while producing artifacts (reports, contest results, bounty policy, monitoring) that exchanges and partners recognize.
A note on “cheap now, expensive later”
The cost of a missed critical bug dwarfs premium audit spend. 2025’s losses were outlier‑driven—three largest hacks captured 69% of service losses; one exchange compromise hit $1.5B. A single percent of that loss can exceed a comprehensive security program for years. (chainalysis.com)
How 7Block Labs can help
- We scope audits against invariants, not just LOC, and build the fix‑review and diff‑audit into the SOW.
- We orchestrate contest audits, Immunefi‑aligned bounty rollouts, and Forta/Monitor playbooks, and we advise on when FV delivers ROI.
- For CeFi/hybrid, we coordinate SOC 2/ISO/pentests in parallel with protocol work so you don’t conflate assurance goals.
If you want a budget and timeline grounded in your codebase, share a commit hash and TVL/FAR targets—we’ll reply with an itemized plan within 72 hours including contest, bounty, and monitoring line items tied to measurable risk reduction.
Sources mentioned
- Runtime Verification pricing and duration guidance. (runtimeverification.com)
- OpenZeppelin Venus retainer disclosure. (community.venus.io)
- Certora x Aave v4 security services pricing (FTE rates). (governance.aave.com)
- Editorial cost ranges: TechTarget and commercial market guides. (techtarget.com)
- Code4rena/Sherlock prize pools and examples. (outposts.io)
- Immunefi bounty guidelines and major program examples. (immunefisupport.zendesk.com)
- Forta subscriptions and premium feeds; OZ Defender sunset and OSS tools. (docs.forta.network)
- SOC 2, ISO 27001, pentesting cost anchors. (sprinto.com)
- PoR caveats (PCAOB) and Big Four developments (Tether talks). (nysscpa.org)
- 2025 theft landscape (Chainalysis). (chainalysis.com)
- Echidna/Slither/Foundry invariants and fuzzing on on‑chain state. (blog.trailofbits.com)
Like what you're reading? Let's build together.
Get a free 30‑minute consultation with our engineering team.
