Public Bounty Platforms (Immunefi/HackerOne) vs Self-Hosted Platform

Massive, vetted researcher pool: Platforms like Immunefi and HackerOne provide instant access to thousands of pre-vetted security researchers (e.g., Immunefi's network of 30,000+ whitehats). This matters for critical DeFi protocols needing the highest probability of finding novel, complex vulnerabilities before launch or after major upgrades.

Turnkey operations and legal framework: The platform handles bounty scope definition, triage, payment processing, and provides standardized legal agreements (like the Immunefi Vulnerability Disclosure Policy). This matters for teams lacking dedicated security ops who need to launch a secure, compliant program without building internal processes from scratch.

Complete sovereignty over process and data: You define the entire workflow, tooling stack (e.g., integrating with internal Jira, Slack), and data retention policies. Vulnerability reports never leave your infrastructure. This matters for enterprise-grade Web2 companies or highly secretive R&D projects where data sovereignty and custom SLAs are non-negotiable.

Avoids platform fees and scales with internal team: While setup requires significant engineering/security resources, you avoid the 10-20% platform fee on all bounty payouts. This matters for organizations with a mature, in-house security team (like Coinbase Security) that can manage the program and wants to maximize budget allocation directly to researchers.

Immediate access to a vetted, global pool of security researchers. Platforms like Immunefi (with 30,000+ white-hat hackers) and HackerOne provide instant scale. This matters for protocols needing broad, continuous scrutiny from experts who specialize in DeFi, smart contracts, and blockchain infrastructure.

Public leaderboards and verified payouts act as a trust signal. A prominent bug bounty program on Immunefi signals serious security commitment to users and investors. This matters for public-facing protocols and DAOs where community confidence directly impacts TVL and adoption.

Platform fees (typically 10-20%) on top of large bounty payouts. Critical bug bounties can reach $1M+, making the fee a significant line item. This matters for budget-conscious teams where capital efficiency is paramount, and funds could be directed toward internal audits or tooling.

Limited ability to deeply customize submission workflows or triage processes. You may face higher volumes of low-quality or duplicate reports, requiring dedicated internal resources to manage. This matters for teams with unique tech stacks or compliance needs who require fine-grained control over the security process.

Complete ownership over the submission form, triage logic, and researcher vetting. Integrate directly with internal tools like Jira, Slack, or Snapshot for governance. This matters for enterprise or highly specialized protocols (e.g., layer-2s, oracles) needing tailored processes and strict access controls.

Avoid platform fees, making large bounty programs more capital efficient. Initial setup cost (using tools like Forta, OpenZeppelin Defender) is fixed. This matters for protocols with sustained, high-budget security programs where long-term savings on multi-million dollar payouts are significant.

Building a reputable program and attracting top-tier researchers takes significant time and effort. You lack the built-in network effects of Immunefi/HackerOne. This matters for new or lesser-known protocols that need immediate, high-quality external scrutiny to launch securely.

Your team is responsible for marketing the program, vetting researchers, and managing all triage and payout logistics. This requires dedicated security operations (SecOps) personnel. This matters for lean engineering teams who cannot afford to divert core dev resources to program administration.