Every valid ZK proof looks the same. So what stops you from withdrawing a mixer deposit twice? ➔ The nullifier. In our latest article, @InfectedCrypto walks through how Tornado Cash, Zcash and Penumbra build them, and the audit findings that show up when they fail. adevarlabs.com/functions/blo…

What to expect when we come on as your independent multisig signer (Secure Governance Services): → Our key on your multisig is itself a multisig. Each of our signers generates keys on a dedicated hardware wallet, with backups engraved on metal and stored across physically separate locations. → We define a clear review and approval process before we sign anything, including turnaround times and escalation paths. → We review every proposed transaction, flag concerns, and sign within agreed timeframes. Contract upgrades get reviewed first, and we only sign if the hash of the code being deployed matches the code we reviewed. → We maintain defined protocols for emergency operations, key recovery, and signer replacement, so governance keeps working when something goes wrong. When all the keys on a multisig sit with the same team, one compromise can reach the whole threshold. An independent signer removes that weak link. Learn More Here: x.lingyaoai.com/banescusebi/status/210…

Here's what 2026 looked like so far: 🔺96 operational and access hacks lost $811M. 🔺204 code & smart contract hacks lost $152M. 🔺44 other and mixed-vector hacks (oracle manipulation, bridge exploits, exit scams) lost $353M. Smart contract audits are essential for security. They just don't cover every door attackers are walking through this year. Your infrastructure, ops, and web2 attack surface need their own audits to close that gap. Ship Safely. 🚀

Some teams assume a code change means starting the audit over. Full repo, from scratch. The problem is that this gets applied unconditionally, whether or not the change actually calls for it. A client recently asked us on an intro call: when we change the code, we need to re-audit the whole repo, correct? The answer was no, not necessarily. It depends on what changed and what that change actually touches. That distinction is the entire argument for our service called “continuous security”, so it is worth being precise about it. A single-line change to an isolated helper function does not put your treasury logic back in question. A change to a shared state variable, an access control check, or anything else the rest of the system depends on might reach further than it looks, but it will rarely require a full re-audit. A one-time audit answers that question once, on one commit hash. It cannot tell you anything about the pull request you merge six weeks later. Continuous Security answers it perpetually. We plug into your development process and review pull requests before they merge, tracing each change out to what it actually affects instead of defaulting to the whole repo out of habit. Findings come with severity rankings, and we work through them with your team before the next cycle opens. The result is that you stop paying for a rule of thumb and start paying for the scope the change actually requires. More of our clients are making this same switch, for the same reason. It ends up costing much less compared to a full re-audit. We will always be truthful and tell you what your code actually needs.

1/ Ethereum Greece has a new community partner: @ETHBucharest_, the flagship Ethereum conference and hackathon for Eastern Europe, based in Bucharest, Romania. Different country, same job: give the local Ethereum scene somewhere to gather. 🇬🇷🇷🇴