Web3 Development Services

Most of what you pay for is ordinary software: an app, screens, a backend. The difference is the small amount of code that lives on a public blockchain and moves value on its own. That code must be reviewed by an independent security firm before launch, the review is quoted separately from the build, and it is often the largest line.

Building a small set of contracts, written in Solidity, takes weeks; the product around them, a few months. What sits outside our control is the security review at the end, which is booked in advance, runs for weeks of its own, and has to finish before launch. Anything the reviewers flag comes back to us first.

Yes, though the question we ask first is whether the live contract can be replaced at all. Some are built to be swapped later and some are set in stone, and that single fact decides what a takeover even means. We also check that tests exist and that wallet signing uses something standard, such as WalletConnect.

Yes. The transferable part is method: writing the tests before the contract, running them against a local copy of the network with a tool like Foundry, and treating the outside audit as a stage in the plan instead of a formality. Ask for references and the team will supply real ones.

You end up holding the source published and verified on a public block explorer such as Etherscan, so anyone can read exactly what is running, along with the deployment keys and the test suite that shows what the contract does and refuses to do. The audit report is yours to publish. We keep no keys and no admin rights.

Fair question, given how many projects from the last cycle are gone. Our position: this earns its place when people genuinely need to hold something themselves, or when a rule must be enforced without either side trusting the other. Otherwise it is overkill. If an ordinary database would serve you better, we will say so first.