DAO and governance audits
Governance contracts decide who controls a protocol, so a flaw in them can hand over everything at once. HYDN audits voting power, proposal and execution flow, quorum and timelock settings, delegation and snapshot logic, and checks whether flash-borrowed or recently acquired tokens can be used to pass a malicious proposal.
What we check
- Voting power snapshots. Votes should be counted at a block before the proposal was created, so tokens bought or borrowed afterwards cannot vote.
- Proposal thresholds and quorum. Whether they are set high enough to matter and cannot be gamed by moving tokens between wallets.
- Execution. That only passed proposals execute, exactly once, with the calldata that was voted on.
- Timelocks. Delay length, who can cancel, and whether anything can bypass the queue.
- Delegation. Checkpoint logic, self-delegation and double counting.
- Emergency powers. Guardians and multisigs that can pause or veto, and how those powers are limited.
- Treasury. What a single proposal can move, and whether limits exist.
Off-chain voting
Many DAOs vote off-chain and execute through a multisig or an oracle module. The on-chain part is then only as strong as the signers and the execution bridge. We review how results are carried on-chain and who can act on them.
Frequently asked questions
What is a governance attack?
Gaining enough voting power, often temporarily, to pass a proposal that drains the treasury or hands control of the protocol to the attacker. Flash loans make temporary voting power cheap if votes are counted at the wrong moment.
Is a timelock enough protection?
A timelock gives holders time to react, which only helps if someone is watching and there is a way to stop a malicious proposal. We check both.
Published Updated