Smart contracts and Web3 apps built to be reviewed, tested and upgraded safely

A smart contract can enforce agreed rules automatically wherever several parties need to trust an outcome without trusting each other. Typical examples include releasing escrowed funds when milestones are confirmed, issuing and transferring tokens, recording votes and splitting payments between rights holders. It works well for clear, rule-based steps. Judgement calls, legal interpretation and anything involving private data are better handled off-chain, with the contract recording the result.

A smart contract is code, not automatically a legal contract, although it can carry out obligations set out in one. Whether it is binding depends on the surrounding written agreement and the law in your jurisdiction, so the legal terms should be drafted by your lawyers. We make sure the code matches the agreed terms, document how it behaves in each scenario and keep a readable specification that both teams can sign off.

A smart contract cannot be edited in place, but it can be designed to be upgradeable or replaceable. Common approaches include proxy patterns that point to new logic, modular contracts that can be swapped out and migration plans that move state to a new version. Each option adds admin power, so we protect upgrades with multi-signature approval and time delays, and we say plainly when an immutable design is the safer choice.

Yes. We coordinate an independent audit by a specialist security firm whenever contracts hold assets, mint tokens or control valuable records, and the firm quotes for its work separately. Before the audit we freeze the code and supply a specification, threat model and test results, which helps the auditors concentrate on genuine risk. After the report we fix the findings, document any accepted risks with your sign-off and ask the auditors to review the fixes before deployment.

We test smart contracts at several levels before any live deployment. Unit tests check each function, integration tests cover full user journeys, and fuzz and invariant tests throw unexpected inputs at the contracts to confirm that core rules, such as balances always adding up, never break. We also run static analysis, test on a public test network with real wallets and rehearse upgrades and emergency pauses.

With a custodial wallet a service provider holds the keys and acts for the user, while with a non-custodial wallet users hold their own keys. Custodial options feel familiar and allow account recovery, but they place regulatory and security responsibilities on whoever holds the keys. Non-custodial wallets give users full control and full responsibility. Many products offer both, or use embedded wallets that simplify sign-up while keeping a recovery route.

We make wallet interactions easier by reducing the number of signatures, showing a plain-language summary of what each transaction does, and handling network switching, fee estimates and failures inside the interface. Where suitable we use embedded wallets with email or social sign-in, and sponsored transactions so users do not need to hold tokens just to pay network fees. Before release, we test these flows with people who have not used a wallet before.

Yes, selectively. We take on decentralised finance work where the use case is clear, your advisers have assessed the regulatory position in your target markets and the risks can be controlled. That can include escrow, pooled funds between known parties or on-chain treasury tools for an organisation. We do not build speculative token launches or make claims about returns, and we will not recommend deploying a contract that holds funds without an independent audit.

Smart contract costs depend on scope, and we provide a fixed quote once discovery is complete. The main drivers are the number and complexity of contracts, how much value they control, the wallets and front ends required, the off-chain services needed and the scope of the independent audit, which the audit firm quotes separately. We also estimate deployment and transaction costs on your chosen network, so the full picture is clear before work begins.

Smart contract development time depends mostly on contract complexity, the number of user journeys and the audit firm's availability, which often sets the critical path. A small, well-defined first release, such as a single escrow or token contract with a basic interface, reaches a test network early, and you review working software every one to two weeks. We book audit slots in advance and plan deployment around the remediation window.

You do: the source code, deployment scripts and documentation pass to you under the project contract, and admin keys sit with people you nominate. We set up multi-signature wallets for those signers, so we do not hold sole control of a production contract. Where we need deployment rights during the project, they are temporary and logged, and they are transferred to your signers before launch. That transfer is itself an on-chain transaction you can verify independently.

Smart contracts receive outside data through oracles, which are services that sign and publish information such as reference rates, delivery confirmations or identity checks to the chain. Because a contract trusts whatever its oracle reports, we choose sources carefully, require several confirmations for high-impact inputs, add sanity limits and freshness checks, and plan a fallback when data stops arriving. Where possible, approvals come directly from the responsible party's own signature.

We reduce gas fees mainly through contract design and network choice. Contracts store only what must be on-chain, pack values efficiently, emit events for data that only off-chain systems read and avoid loops over lists that grow with usage. Layer 2 networks usually charge far less per transaction than the base networks they settle to. Where users should not pay at all, sponsored transactions move the fee to the business, and we model expected fee spend at your projected volumes before deployment.