Fixed Scope excels at predictability and cost control because the target surface is strictly defined in advance. For example, a protocol may commission an audit for its newly deployed ERC-4626 vault contract and its associated Governor contract, locking in a 2-week timeline and a $50K budget. This model provides clear deliverables, minimizes scope creep, and is ideal for well-defined, modular upgrades or compliance-driven checklists.
LABS
Comparisons
Fixed Scope vs Flexible/Expanding Scope Bug Bounties
A technical comparison of two core bug bounty program structures for blockchain protocols. We analyze the trade-offs between tightly defined code boundaries and open-ended exploration of dependencies to help security leads optimize their vulnerability management strategy.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: Defining the Battlefield for Security Researchers
A foundational look at the strategic trade-offs between fixed and flexible scope audits, defining the core operational parameters for security engagements.
Flexible/Expanding Scope takes a different approach by prioritizing depth and emergent threats. Auditors are empowered to follow the data, exploring interconnected contracts, admin privileges, and economic incentives that may not be in the initial brief. This results in a trade-off of higher potential cost and timeline uncertainty for a more holistic security posture, often uncovering critical vulnerabilities in peripheral systems or novel attack vectors like MEV extraction.
The key trade-off: If your priority is budget certainty, speed, and a focused review of a specific release, choose Fixed Scope. If you prioritize maximum test coverage, deep systemic analysis, and are preparing for a mainnet launch or handling complex DeFi legos, choose Flexible Scope. The decision often hinges on the maturity of your codebase and the criticality of the assets at risk.
tldr-summary
Fixed Scope vs. Flexible Scope
TL;DR: Core Differentiators at a Glance
Key architectural and operational trade-offs for blockchain infrastructure decisions.
01
Fixed Scope: Predictable Performance
Guaranteed resource allocation: A dedicated chain or appchain (e.g., dYdX on Cosmos, Axie Infinity's Ronin) ensures consistent TPS and sub-second finality. This matters for high-frequency DeFi and gaming where latency is a direct UX killer.
02
Fixed Scope: Sovereign Security & Upgrade Control
Full protocol governance: Teams control their own validator set and upgrade timeline without external coordination. This matters for enterprise deployments and protocols with unique tokenomics (e.g., MakerDAO's eventual multi-chain Endgame plan) requiring bespoke security models.
03
Flexible Scope: Instant Composability & Liquidity
Native access to a unified ecosystem: Deploying on a general-purpose L1/L2 (e.g., Ethereum, Arbitrum, Solana) grants immediate access to billions in TVL and established primitives like Uniswap, Aave, and Chainlink. This matters for new DeFi protocols and social apps that thrive on network effects.
04
Flexible Scope: Reduced Operational Overhead
No validator management or bridge security: The underlying chain (e.g., Optimism, Base) handles consensus, data availability, and uptime. This matters for smaller teams and rapid MVPs where devops complexity can consume a $500K+ budget.
ARCHITECTURAL APPROACH
Fixed Scope vs Flexible Scope: Head-to-Head Comparison
Direct comparison of key architectural and operational metrics for blockchain design paradigms.
| Metric / Feature | Fixed Scope | Flexible/Expanding Scope |
|---|---|---|
Core Architecture | Monolithic | Modular |
Development Velocity | Slower (months) | Faster (weeks) |
Upgrade Complexity | High (hard forks) | Low (module swaps) |
Security Surface | Single, battle-tested | Multi-component, composable risk |
Time to Market for New Features | 12-18 months | 3-6 months |
Developer Lock-in | High | Low |
Example Protocols | Bitcoin, Ethereum L1 | Celestia, EigenLayer, Cosmos |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
Fixed Scope vs. Flexible Scope Bug Bounties
A tactical breakdown of scope rigidity in security programs. Choose based on your project's maturity, budget, and risk profile.
01
Fixed Scope: Predictable Budgeting
Controlled cost ceiling: Budget is defined upfront based on the specific assets in scope (e.g., 3 smart contracts, 1 web app). This prevents runaway costs from unexpected, out-of-scope findings. Essential for startups with strict $50K-$100K security budgets or teams needing precise quarterly forecasting.
02
Fixed Scope: Focused Tester Engagement
High-efficiency targeting: Researchers concentrate exclusively on the defined attack surface (e.g., a newly deployed Uniswap v4 hook). This leads to deeper, more relevant findings and avoids noise from unrelated infrastructure. Ideal for auditing a specific module pre-launch or a time-sensitive mainnet upgrade.
03
Flexible Scope: Comprehensive Attack Surface
Continuous, evolving coverage: Scope can expand to include newly discovered dependencies, adjacent protocols, or front-end interfaces. Catches complex, multi-vector threats like those seen in cross-chain bridge exploits (e.g., Wormhole, Nomad). Critical for established DeFi protocols with $100M+ TVL where any component can be a vector.
04
Flexible Scope: Adaptive to Live Threats
Real-time response to novel attacks: If a new vulnerability class emerges (e.g., a novel Oracle manipulation), the scope can be immediately updated to incentivize testing for it. This reduces time-to-detection for critical, chain-wide threats. Necessary for base-layer L1s or widely used L2s where ecosystem risk is high.
05
Fixed Scope: Limitation - Coverage Gaps
Blind spots in integrated systems: Strict boundaries can miss vulnerabilities at the integration points between in-scope and out-of-scope components. A front-end flaw draining a smart contract might be missed if only the contract is scoped. A poor fit for complex dApps with multiple interacting services.
06
Flexible Scope: Limitation - Cost & Management Overhead
Unbounded resource commitment: Program costs scale with findings and scope expansion, requiring continuous budget reassessment. Triage workload increases significantly, demanding dedicated security ops (e.g., using Forta, OpenZeppelin Defender). Can be prohibitive for sub-$1M treasury projects.
pros-cons-b
Fixed Scope vs. Flexible Scope
Flexible/Expanding Scope Bug Bounty: Advantages and Limitations
A tactical comparison for security leads allocating budget and managing risk. Choose based on your project's maturity, attack surface, and operational capacity.
01
Fixed Scope: Predictable Budget & Focus
Controlled Cost & Timeline: Budget is capped, and testing is confined to a predefined list of contracts (e.g., v2 Core AMM, StakingVault). This is critical for pre-launch audits or quarterly reviews where spend must be forecasted.
Streamlined Triage: Security teams receive only relevant findings, reducing noise and accelerating remediation for the specific components under test.
02
Fixed Scope: Limitations & Blind Spots
Missed Integration Risks: Testers ignore interactions with unaudited dependencies (e.g., oracle feeds, proxy admins, peripheral contracts). This creates a false sense of security for live protocols where composability is the primary attack vector.
Static Target: Newly deployed contracts or post-audit upgrades fall outside the scope, leaving critical gaps until the next engagement.
03
Flexible Scope: Comprehensive Attack Surface
Discovery of Unknown Risks: Researchers can test the entire deployed system, including admin privileges, governance mechanisms, and third-party integrations. This mimics a real attacker's approach, uncovering chain-level and integration flaws that fixed audits miss.
Continuous Coverage: As new contracts are deployed, they are automatically in-scope, providing ongoing protection for evolving protocols like DeFi composability hubs or L2 rollups.
04
Flexible Scope: Operational & Cost Complexity
Unbounded Budget & Effort: Without strict boundaries, triage volume can spike, requiring dedicated internal security ops to validate findings. Programs like Immunefi's top-tier bounties can see 1000+ submissions monthly.
Higher Barrier to Entry: Effective management requires a mature security posture, including a clear vulnerability disclosure policy (VDP), a dedicated response team, and a significant budget reserve for critical bugs.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Use Each Model: A Decision Framework
Fixed Scope for DeFi
Verdict: The default choice for established, high-value applications. Strengths: Predictable gas costs and security guarantees are paramount for protocols like Aave, Uniswap, or Compound. A fixed, battle-tested environment (e.g., Ethereum L1, Arbitrum) minimizes systemic risk, supports complex composability, and attracts institutional TVL. The mature tooling (Hardhat, Foundry) and audit standards are critical. Considerations: High per-transaction costs can price out small users; upgrades are slow and require rigorous governance.
Flexible Scope for DeFi
Verdict: Ideal for experimental, high-frequency, or cost-sensitive applications. Strengths: Sub-second finality and fractional-cent fees on chains like Solana or Sui enable novel DeFi primitives (e.g., Drift Protocol, Jupiter). Parallel execution unlocks high-throughput DEXs and lending markets. Faster iteration cycles allow rapid feature deployment. Considerations: Newer virtual machines (Sealevel, Move) have a smaller developer pool and less proven security models. Composability can be more complex than on EVM chains.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between fixed and flexible scope is a foundational architectural decision that dictates your project's long-term trajectory and operational overhead.
Fixed Scope excels at delivering predictable performance and security by enforcing strict, audited boundaries. For example, a blockchain like Bitcoin, with its intentionally limited scripting language, achieves unparalleled security and decentralization, processing ~7 TPS with a 99.98% uptime over a decade. This model minimizes attack surfaces and operational surprises, making it ideal for high-value, immutable ledgers and core settlement layers where trust is paramount.
Flexible/Expanding Scope takes a different approach by enabling on-chain programmability and upgradeability through mechanisms like smart contracts and governance proposals. This results in a trade-off between innovation velocity and systemic risk. Protocols like Ethereum and Solana exemplify this, where EVM and SVM compatibility allow for explosive DeFi and NFT growth (e.g., Ethereum's ~$50B TVL), but also introduce complexities like smart contract vulnerabilities, state bloat, and contentious hard forks.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing security, predictability, and doing one thing exceptionally well—such as building a stablecoin bridge or a custody solution—choose a Fixed Scope foundation. If you prioritize rapid feature iteration, composability, and building complex dApps that require smart contracts, choose a Flexible Scope platform. Your decision ultimately hinges on whether you need a hardened, specialized rail or a dynamic, programmable ecosystem.
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall