Why Audits Alone Can’t Secure Robust Infrastructure in DeFi

Audit certificates are often cited by decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols as proof of their robust security. However, although audits provide some peace of mind, they should be viewed as a layer of security rather than a comprehensive shield. 

The image of forensic auditors probing smart contract codebases, identifying and resolving every single flaw, is itself flawed as illustrated by the vast number of defi projects that have suffered exploits post-audit. A successful audit should never confer a sense of serenity about all things being well. 

Daejun Park, senior security researcher at a16z Crypto, recently made this point by arguing that protocols must go beyond “patch-after-the-hack” security to preserve the health of the entire defi sector.

Learning Lessons From TradeFi

Just as the global financial system defines safety through layered risk management and operational resilience, DeFi counterparts must evolve beyond code-centric assurances, particularly as more real-world assets (RWAs) come on-chain. 

This is not to say auditors don’t do a tremendous job. After all, they often report a laundry list of findings, many of them non-critical and others more serious. It all essentially helps developers improve the usability of a protocol and avoid an unforeseen catastrophe. That said, auditors don’t conform to an industry standard and code audits are just one line of defence. 

The same is true in the legacy financial system, where another kind of audit occurs to ensure the accuracy of financial statements, and where risk management processes take account of various dangers facing a company. In addition to risk management, financial firms must weigh up things like physical and cyber security, fraud prevention, data privacy, and disaster recovery.

In DeFi, audit-first security should be viewed as a necessary but insufficient step during an age in which RWAs and institutional capital are demanding systems capable of operating reliably through failures, disruptions, and human error. At the end of the day, code exploits are just one threat with others stemming from operational breakdowns and systemic risk. 

When Audits Fail, the System Fails

In the most egregious example of an audit failing to flag systemic risk, the FTX cryptocurrency exchange imploded in spite of audits conducted by Prager Metis CPAs, which later paid $1.95 million to settle two Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charges of negligence. 

The SEC pointedly remarked that in its haste to accept FTX as a client, Prager Metis “assembled an engagement team that collectively lacked the competence, experience, and knowledge to appropriately conduct the audits.” 

FTX may be the most obvious example, but many other extensively audited projects, from Euler Finance to Nomad Bridge, have suffered significant exploits, driving home the point that audits alone cannot be afforded a ‘gold standard’ status when it comes to security.

Beyond Code Analysis

As TradeFi entities embrace tokenization and move parts of their business on-chain, security is destined to become defined by institutional risk frameworks rather than code correctness alone. 

With RWA adoption growing, it stands to reason that platforms boasting institutional-grade operational and governance maturity will have an advantage over those simply putting their faith in an auditor.

What does this mean in practice? It means combining audits with things like bug bounties, rigorous monitoring systems, incident response processes, multisig governance, and penetration testing, the better to prove one’s ability to absorb shocks, manage off-chain dependencies and human factors, and maintain availability under duress. The next phase of DeFi competition is likely to be defined by resilience rather than velocity. 

Some projects appear to understand this. Pharos, a EVM-compatible finance-ready blockchain for RWAs and cross-chain liquidity, was built to unify Web2 and Web3 at internet scale and its clear emphasis on operational resilience, governance, and failure recovery aligns with how global financial systems define security.

Rather than optimizing solely to avoid exploits, Pharos was designed to withstand, contain, and recover from failures, an essential requirement for RWA and institutional participation in defi. With its integrated KYC/AML modules and modular SPN architecture, compliance is built-in rather than bolted on. Auditing is also automated, and Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs) are deployed to provide an extra layer of security.

Seize the Day

Institutional adoption continues to accelerate, a consequence of regulatory de-risking and maturing tech. Protocols intent on seizing the day must start to appreciate the expectations of those entering the market and abandon their ‘code is law’ approach. 

If they don’t, their competitors will. 

Also Read: Accused $40M Govt. Crypto Thief ‘Lick’ Launches Memecoin on Solana

Disclaimer: The information researched and reported by The Crypto Times is for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for professional financial advice. Investing in crypto assets involves significant risk due to market volatility. Always Do Your Own Research (DYOR) and consult with a qualified Financial Advisor before making any investment decisions.