Services

Web3 & Blockchain

Smart Contract Development & Audit Services

Code That Holds Up When Real Money Is on the Line.

Quecko designs, builds, and rigorously audits smart contracts that power everything from DeFi protocols to enterprise agreements — engineered for security and gas efficiency from the first line of code, not hardened after a near-miss.

400+clients across 20+ countries
$300M+in funds generated
250+products built
150+engineers worldwide
400+clients across 20+ countries
$300M+in funds generated
250+products built
150+engineers worldwide
400+clients across 20+ countries
$300M+in funds generated
250+products built
150+engineers worldwide
400+clients across 20+ countries
$300M+in funds generated
250+products built
150+engineers worldwide
What We Build

What Quecko Delivers for Smart Contract Development & Security Audits

01

Custom Protocol Contract Development

Business-logic-specific smart contracts for DeFi, DAOs, marketplaces, and tokenized assets, engineered around your actual mechanism design rather than templated boilerplate copied from a tutorial and lightly modified.

02

Smart Contract Security Audits

Manual and automated audits covering reentrancy, integer overflow, access control gaps, oracle manipulation, and economic attack vectors specific to your protocol's incentive structure — available as a standalone engagement even for contracts we didn't build.

03

Gas Optimization

Storage layout optimization, calldata packing, batching strategies, and targeted assembly-level tuning to meaningfully reduce user transaction costs without sacrificing code readability, auditability, or safety margins.

04

Upgradeable Contract Architecture

Proxy patterns (UUPS, Transparent Proxy) implemented correctly with storage-collision protection and a properly governed upgrade path — an area where subtle mistakes have caused some of the most expensive exploits in DeFi history.

05

Formal Verification

Mathematical proof of critical contract invariants for high-value protocols where a standard audit's coverage isn't sufficient assurance given the amount of capital the contract will secure.

06

Multi-Chain & Cross-VM Development

Solidity and Vyper for EVM chains, Rust for Solana/Sui/Near, and Move-based contract engineering — so the chain choice is driven by your actual requirements, not by which language our team happens to know.

The Challenge

The Question Every Audit Report Has to Answer Honestly

Smart contracts are unusual among software artifacts in that a single deployed bug is often permanent, public, and directly convertible into stolen funds within minutes of discovery — there's no patch-and-redeploy cycle once meaningful value sits behind a contract address. That reality has professionalized the entire discipline: serious teams now treat contract security as a first-class engineering requirement on par with the business logic itself, not a final checkbox before launch, because the cost of getting it wrong is measured in irreversible losses rather than a support ticket. A smart contract bug isn't a bug fix away from disaster — it's often an irreversible, publicly visible loss of funds the moment it's exploited. Most teams either under-invest in security by shipping unaudited or lightly-reviewed code under launch pressure, or over-invest in a generic checklist-style audit that catches known vulnerability patterns but misses business-logic flaws specific to their actual protocol design. Quecko treats every contract as production financial infrastructure from the first line of code, not a prototype to harden later once it's already handling real user funds.

The Old Way
Ship an MVP contract, plan to 'audit before mainnet' under deadline pressure
Run a single automated scanner and call it a security review
Audit the code, not the economic assumptions behind it
Treat gas optimization as a post-launch nice-to-have
The Quecko Way
Threat modeling and security requirements defined before a single line of Solidity is written
Independent internal audit team separate from the development team, plus third-party review
Business-logic and economic attack vectors reviewed alongside pure code-level vulnerabilities
Gas efficiency treated as a design constraint from day one, not an optimization pass at the end
Execution Blueprint

Execution Timeline

01Day 1–22

Requirements & Threat Modeling

We map your protocol's business logic end-to-end, identify attack surfaces specific to your mechanism design, and define concrete security requirements before any code is written — the single most-skipped step in most contract projects.

02Day 23–44

Development & Unit Testing

Contracts are built with full unit and integration test coverage, using established design patterns (checks-effects-interactions, access control, careful upgradeability where appropriate) rather than reinventing security patterns from scratch.

03Day 45–66

Internal Peer Review

A separate internal team member — not the original author — reviews the contract line by line specifically hunting for logic flaws, incorrect assumptions, and edge cases the original developer's mental model may have missed.

04Day 67–88

Third-Party Audit

Independent external audit combining automated static analysis tooling with manual line-by-line review, producing a full findings report with severity ratings and concrete remediation guidance for every issue identified.

Technology

Technologies We Master

Tools, frameworks, and protocols we use to build secure and scalable solutions.

Languages

SoliditySolidity
VyperVyper
RustRust
MoveMove

Testing & Security

FoundryFoundry
HardhatHardhat
SlitherSlither
MythrilMythril
EchidnaEchidna

Formal Verification

CertoraCertora
K FrameworkK Framework

Infrastructure

OpenZeppelin ContractsOpenZeppelin Contracts
Chainlink OraclesChainlink Oracles
The GraphThe Graph
Our Edge

Why Quecko for Smart Contract Development & Security Audits

On — Every contract is written with an adversarial mindset from day one — we ask 'how would we attack this' during development, not just during a separate audit phase bolted on at the end.

Security as Default, Not Add

On — Every contract is written with an adversarial mindset from day one — we ask 'how would we attack this' during development, not just during a separate audit phase bolted on at the end.

Independent Audit Discipline

We structurally separate development and audit responsibilities internally specifically to avoid the well-known conflict of a team auditing its own code and missing its own blind spots.

Gas

Conscious Engineering — We treat gas cost as a first-class design constraint from the architecture phase, not an optimization pass squeezed in after functionality is already locked.

Cross

VM Fluency — Deep, current experience across both EVM and non-EVM environments means we can honestly recommend the right chain and language for your logic, not just the one our team happens to know best.

Our Work

Our Projects

Video thumbnail
Video thumbnail
Video thumbnail
Video thumbnail
Social Proof

With hard work, determination, and an amazing team at Quecko, we can overcome any obstacle and achieve anything we set our minds to.

Tom Blears

Bitcast Protocol
Engagement

How We Collaborate

Full Contract Build (4–10 weeks typical)

End-to-end development from specification through internal review, third-party audit, and deployment of production-ready, audited contracts.

Audit-Only Engagement (2–4 weeks)

Independent security audit of contracts your own team has already written, delivered as a standalone engagement with a full findings report.

Dedicated Smart Contract Pod (Ongoing)

Embedded senior Solidity/Rust engineers working inside your existing development team for continuous contract development and review.

FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions

We audit both. Our audit team regularly reviews contracts built by other teams entirely, as a standalone engagement separate from any development work. This is actually the healthier setup from a security standpoint, since an audit team with no attachment to the original code has no incentive to overlook a flaw they might otherwise feel responsible for.

A standard protocol audit takes 2–4 weeks depending on contract complexity, lines of code, and how many distinct economic mechanisms are involved. Formal verification engagements, which mathematically prove specific invariants rather than just searching for known vulnerability patterns, typically run longer — often 4–8 weeks depending on the complexity of the properties being proven.

Yes, in most cases we can retrofit proxy-based upgradeability where the existing contract architecture allows it without excessive risk. Where the existing design makes safe retrofitting impractical, we'll advise honestly on a migration path to a new, upgradeable version rather than forcing an unsafe retrofit onto an architecture that wasn't designed for it.

We provide a full findings report with severity ratings (critical, high, medium, low, informational) and concrete remediation guidance for each issue. Once your team implements the fixes, we re-audit specifically those changes before issuing final sign-off — a fix that isn't re-verified is not meaningfully different from no fix at all.

Yes — our audit capability extends to Rust-based programs on Solana, Sui, and similar ecosystems, as well as Move-based contracts. The underlying vulnerability classes differ by language and execution model, so we match auditors with relevant experience in that specific environment rather than applying a generic EVM-centric checklist everywhere.

Audit scope and pricing depend primarily on lines of code, the number of distinct economic mechanisms in the protocol, and whether formal verification is required in addition to standard review. We provide a fixed-scope quote after an initial codebase review, so there are no surprise costs mid-engagement.

Blogs

Latest Stories from Quecko

Ready to ship a smart contract that holds up under real adversarial pressure, not just a passing test suite?