Blind Dev article
Why people overrate audits: the false feeling of safety
An audit is a signal, not a guarantee; how to read reports without self-deception.
Based on Blind Dev personal experience and source posts; verify current details before applying.
Not investment advice. This article describes methodology and risks.
English translation of the original Russian post dated 2026-03-02. Edgex, Balancer and the linked vulnerability report are historical examples from that post, not a fresh security assessment. This is not investment advice.
Why do people overrate audits? Let us get rid of a false sense of security.
We read reports ourselves or read other people’s summaries. When we see that every issue has been fixed, we think: “It is safe to invest.” As if the mere existence of an audit automatically reduced the risk.
But it is not a guarantee of reliability. An audit checks a particular version of code at a particular moment.
In my own analysis, I always mention audits in the “Code” section and even increase a project’s score when audits exist and the reported issues have been fixed. Lately, though, I have started paying attention to the following.
1. When was the audit performed?
A recent example in my March 2026 post was Edgex: its audits were from 2024–2025, while the project continued to release updates. That did not establish that its current code had been checked.
2. What exactly was audited?
Sometimes a project mentions audits, but they do not cover its main components. A non-specialist may not notice. I suggested giving the files to AI and asking whether they covered the project’s core components.
In the Edgex example, the materials concerned StarkEx and a deposit/withdrawal multisig or router. I could not establish that the DEX engine itself had been audited: either it had not been, or the information had not been published.
That distinction is critical. Even if the bridge and deposits and withdrawals have been checked, it does not mean the entire order execution and position accounting logic has received a full audit.
An engine error might not steal funds directly, but could cause incorrect calculations, frozen operations, and losses for traders or ELP. Someone reading only the audit badge might be completely surprised by such a disruption.
3. AI speeds up vulnerability discovery
To be fair, people also use it to find vulnerabilities in order to fix them; Vitalik Buterin had written about that too. But development is accelerating, and older projects with slow updates are at risk.
The original post linked to a 2025 report about an AI tool helping discover a critical vulnerability in an operating blockchain protocol, with potential damage of several million dollars, despite an earlier audit. I also mentioned the Balancer case, which I had already discussed in two other posts.
4. Who performed the audit?
The auditors’ reputation also matters. Their analysis itself might be poor, which calls for a separate, deeper review.
AI can summarize audit reports. A summary alone cannot establish the auditors’ reputation, whether the report matches the current code — especially without GitHub access — or how professionally the review was performed, including whether AI-assisted code audits were used.
Do not rely too heavily on whether a project has audits or how many it has. Risk management remains necessary.
Do you study code and audit reports before choosing where to invest, or is the existence of an audit enough for you?