Economic Security Audits excel at analyzing the game-theoretic and financial incentives of a protocol. They focus on attack vectors like governance manipulation, oracle manipulation, and economic exploits that code review alone cannot catch. For example, an audit by firms like Gauntlet or Chaos Labs might simulate millions of market scenarios to stress-test a lending protocol's liquidation parameters, directly protecting its Total Value Locked (TVL) from cascading failures.
LABS
Comparisons
Economic Security Audit vs Code Security Audit
A technical analysis comparing economic security audits, which analyze tokenomics and incentive attacks, with code security audits, which review smart contract code for vulnerabilities. Essential reading for CTOs and protocol architects.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: Two Pillars of Smart Contract Security
Understanding the fundamental distinction between economic and code security audits is critical for CTOs allocating a $500K+ security budget.
Code Security Audits take a different approach by performing a line-by-line review of the smart contract's logic and implementation. This results in identifying vulnerabilities like reentrancy, integer overflows, and access control flaws. Leading firms like Trail of Bits and OpenZeppelin use static analysis, fuzzing, and formal verification to find bugs, as seen in their work on major DeFi protocols like Uniswap and Aave, which collectively secure tens of billions in TVL.
The key trade-off: Economic audits are a proactive, system-level stress test, while code audits are a reactive, implementation-level bug hunt. If your priority is protocol resilience and long-term economic stability—especially for complex DeFi systems with tokenomics and governance—prioritize an economic audit. If you prioritize immediate code correctness and vulnerability patching before mainnet deployment, a comprehensive code audit is non-negotiable. For maximum security, a mature protocol budget should allocate for both, sequenced with code audit first.
tldr-summary
Economic vs. Code Security Audits
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for two distinct audit paradigms.
01
Economic Security Audit: Pro
Identifies systemic risk and incentive misalignment: Analyzes tokenomics, governance, staking rewards, and slashing conditions. This matters for DeFi protocols (e.g., Aave, Compound) and Layer 1/Layer 2 networks to prevent exploits like governance attacks or validator centralization.
02
Economic Security Audit: Pro
Assesses long-term sustainability: Evaluates emission schedules, treasury management, and fee market design. This matters for protocols with native tokens to ensure the economic model doesn't collapse under stress, protecting a project's Total Value Locked (TVL) and user confidence.
03
Economic Security Audit: Con
Cannot find code-level bugs: Misses smart contract vulnerabilities like reentrancy, integer overflows, or logic errors. This is a critical gap for new smart contract deployments where a single bug can lead to immediate fund loss, as seen in historical hacks.
04
Code Security Audit: Pro
Finds critical technical vulnerabilities: Uses static/dynamic analysis and manual review to detect bugs in smart contract code (Solidity, Vyper). This matters for any contract holding user funds to prevent direct exploits like the $325M Wormhole bridge hack.
05
Code Security Audit: Pro
Verifies implementation against specifications: Ensures the code logic matches the intended design and adheres to standards (e.g., ERC-20, ERC-721). This matters for compliance and interoperability, especially for protocols integrating with others like Uniswap or OpenSea.
06
Code Security Audit: Con
Blind to game theory and market risks: Does not evaluate if the protocol's economic design can be gamed or if incentives will fail under market volatility. This is a major risk for algorithmic stablecoins or liquidity mining programs where economic attacks are common.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Economic Security Audit vs. Code Security Audit
Direct comparison of audit types for blockchain protocol and smart contract risk assessment.
| Metric / Focus | Economic Security Audit | Code Security Audit |
|---|---|---|
Primary Objective | Assess incentive alignment & financial attack vectors | Identify bugs, vulnerabilities, and logic flaws |
Key Deliverable | Economic model report with stress-test scenarios | Vulnerability report with severity scores (e.g., Critical, High) |
Core Analysis Method | Game theory simulation, tokenomics review, slashing analysis | Static/dynamic analysis, manual code review, fuzzing |
Typical Cost Range | $50K - $200K+ | $15K - $100K+ |
Audit Timeline | 4 - 12 weeks | 2 - 6 weeks |
Critical for Protocols | ||
Critical for dApps | ||
Common Tools/Frameworks | Gauntlet, Chaos Labs, custom simulations | Slither, MythX, Foundry, manual review |
pros-cons-a
Two Foundational Approaches
Economic Security Audit: Pros and Cons
While a Code Security Audit (e.g., by Trail of Bits, OpenZeppelin) examines smart contract logic, an Economic Security Audit (e.g., by Chainscore, Gauntlet) analyzes the protocol's tokenomics and financial incentives. Choose based on your launch stage and risk profile.
01
Economic Audit: Proactive Risk Modeling
Simulates real-world financial attacks: Models scenarios like governance attacks, liquidity crises, and oracle manipulation using agent-based simulations. This matters for DeFi protocols (e.g., Aave, Compound) where economic failure can lead to insolvency, not just bug exploitation.
02
Code Audit: Eliminating Logical Flaws
Finds vulnerabilities in the source code: Uses static/dynamic analysis and manual review to catch bugs like reentrancy, overflow, and access control errors. This is non-negotiable for any deployment and is the first line of defense against exploits like the $60M Wormhole bridge hack.
03
Economic Audit: Con - Post-Launch Focus
Requires a live or simulated economic environment: Most value is realized after mainnet launch when real token flows and market data exist. For a pre-launch project, models rely on assumptions, limiting predictive power compared to concrete code review.
04
Code Audit: Con - Blind to Game Theory
Cannot assess incentive misalignments: A contract can be perfectly bug-free but economically unstable. For example, a flawed staking reward schedule or governance veto mechanism can lead to centralization or collapse, issues a pure code audit will never flag.
pros-cons-b
ECONOMIC SECURITY AUDIT VS. CODE SECURITY AUDIT
Code Security Audit: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for CTOs and Protocol Architects evaluating audit strategies.
02
Economic Security Audit: Key Limitation
Cannot find code-level vulnerabilities: Misses critical bugs like reentrancy, integer overflows, or logic errors in smart contracts. A protocol with perfectly designed tokenomics can still be drained by a simple Solidity bug. This is a major risk for DeFi protocols like Aave or Uniswap V3 where contract logic is paramount.
04
Code Security Audit: Key Limitation
Blind to systemic and game-theoretic risks: Does not assess whether the protocol's economic design is sustainable or exploitable. A perfectly audited contract can still fail due to liquidity crises, governance capture, or oracle manipulation, as seen in models like OlympusDAO's early iterations.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Use Each: A Decision Framework
Economic Security Audit for Architects
Verdict: Mandatory for token-based systems. This audit is your primary defense against governance attacks, tokenomics failure, and validator centralization. It quantifies the cost to attack your network's consensus (e.g., 51% attack cost on PoS, bonding curve manipulation) and models long-term sustainability.
Key Scenarios:
- Launching a new L1/L2 with a native token.
- Designing complex staking, ve-token, or rebasing mechanisms.
- Evaluating validator/delegator incentive alignment.
Tools & Metrics: Attack cost simulations (e.g., using Gauntlet, Chaos Labs models), token flow analysis, stress-testing under market volatility.
Code Security Audit for Architects
Verdict: Non-negotiable for all smart contract deployment. This is your defense against direct exploits like reentrancy, logic errors, and oracle manipulation. It does not assess your token's economic model.
Key Scenarios:
- Deploying any smart contract to mainnet.
- Adding new features to existing protocols.
- Integrating with external DeFi primitives (e.g., AMMs, lending vaults).
Tools & Standards: Formal verification (e.g., Certora, Halmos), static analysis (Slither), and manual review by firms like Trail of Bits, OpenZeppelin, or Quantstamp.
AUDIT COMPARISON
Technical Deep Dive: Methodologies and Tools
Understanding the distinct purposes, processes, and outputs of Economic Security Audits versus traditional Code Security Audits is critical for protocol architects and engineering leaders allocating security budgets.
The core difference is the audit's primary target: system incentives vs. software vulnerabilities. A Code Security Audit examines smart contract code for bugs (e.g., reentrancy, overflow) using tools like Slither or Foundry. An Economic Security Audit analyzes the protocol's tokenomics, governance, and incentive mechanisms for flaws like value extraction, governance attacks, or unsustainable emissions, using frameworks like CadCAD for simulation. Both are essential for a holistic security posture.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between economic and code security audits depends on your protocol's stage, tokenomics, and primary risk vectors.
Economic Security Audits excel at validating the long-term sustainability and incentive alignment of a protocol's token model. They analyze mechanisms like staking rewards, inflation schedules, and governance power distribution to prevent value extraction or death spirals. For example, a DeFi lending protocol with a complex veTokenomics system would require this audit to ensure its Total Value Locked (TVL) growth isn't undermined by poorly designed emission curves or whale dominance.
Code Security Audits take a different approach by rigorously testing the smart contract logic for vulnerabilities that could lead to immediate fund loss. This results in a trade-off between deep financial modeling and exhaustive technical review. Firms like Trail of Bits and OpenZeppelin focus on identifying reentrancy bugs, oracle manipulation, and access control flaws—critical for any protocol before mainnet launch, as a single exploit can drain millions, as seen in historical hacks.
The key trade-off: If your priority is launch safety and preventing catastrophic bugs, choose a Code Security Audit first. If you prioritize long-term token holder alignment and protocol resilience against economic attacks, an Economic Security Audit is essential. For mature protocols with significant TVL (e.g., >$100M), both are non-negotiable, conducted in sequence: code first for safety, then economics for sustainability.
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