Smart contract audit vs bug bounty
An audit is a structured review of your code by a dedicated team before launch, paid for the time and covering the whole scope. A bug bounty pays independent researchers for each valid bug they find, usually after launch, for as long as it runs. They do different jobs: an audit finds problems before money is at risk, and a bounty keeps eyes on the code afterwards. Most serious protocols use both.
Side by side
| Smart contract audit | Bug bounty | |
|---|---|---|
| When | Before launch, and before upgrades | Usually after launch, ongoing |
| Who | A dedicated team you choose | Any researcher who takes part |
| Coverage | The whole agreed scope, systematically | Wherever researchers choose to look |
| Paid for | Time and expertise | Valid findings only |
| Guarantee | Every in-scope contract reviewed | None; depends on participation |
| Output | Report, fix review, certification | Individual reports as found |
How they fit together
- Audit the code before deployment and fix what it finds.
- Launch with a bug bounty sized to the value at risk.
- Re-audit before significant upgrades, and keep the bounty running.
Add monitoring for live incidents. HYDN’s own monitoring caught the SushiSwap RouteProcessor2 exploit as it happened. See the case study.
Frequently asked questions
Can a bug bounty replace an audit?
Not safely. A bounty only pays when someone chooses to look and finds something, and launch-day attackers are not obliged to report. An audit guarantees that experienced reviewers have gone through the whole scope before funds are at risk.
When should we start a bounty?
After the audit and fixes, ideally at or before launch, with rewards sized to the value at risk so reporting pays better than exploiting.
Published Updated