Why Code Audits Matter in DeFi: A Deep Dive into DEX Security

·

In the fast-evolving world of decentralized finance (DeFi), security is not just a feature — it's a necessity. As new decentralized exchanges (DEXs) emerge across various blockchains, users and investors are increasingly asking one critical question: Can I trust this protocol with my funds? One of the most reliable indicators of trustworthiness is a comprehensive code audit. This article explores why code audits are essential, examines real-world examples from top DEXs, and reveals how to assess the true security posture of any DeFi project.


The Importance of Code Audits in DeFi

A code audit is an in-depth review of a blockchain protocol’s smart contracts by an independent, professional security team. It identifies vulnerabilities that could lead to exploits, fund loss, or system failure. While no audit can guarantee 100% safety, a well-conducted audit significantly reduces risk.

👉 Discover how leading platforms ensure security through rigorous audits and vulnerability programs.

Projects that skip audits — or rely solely on superficial checks — raise red flags. If a team isn’t willing to invest in proper security validation, can they really be committed to long-term sustainability?

Core Keywords:


Case Study: Cetus DEX Under Attack

Cetus, a prominent DEX operating on both Aptos and SUI ecosystems, recently suffered a security incident on its SUI chain deployment. While full details of the exploit remain under investigation, we can analyze its prior audit history to understand potential weaknesses.

Certik Audit: A Surface-Level Check?

Cetus received a Certik audit, which reported only two low-risk issues (resolved) and nine informational findings (six resolved). Certik assigned a code quality score of 96/100 and an overall security score of 83.06.

However, many in the community view Certik audits as somewhat symbolic — often pursued for marketing rather than deep technical assurance. Why?

"Certik has close ties with CoinMarketCap and Binance, making their audits a common prerequisite for listings."

This doesn’t mean Certik provides no value. Their platform, Skynet, monitors real-time threats and scans beyond code — including DNS and website integrity. But relying only on Certik may not be enough for high-value protocols.

Independent Audits: MoveBit, OtterSec, and Zellic

Cetus was also audited by three specialized firms experienced in Move language — the programming language used by SUI and Aptos:

🔹 MoveBit Audit (Uploaded: April 28, 2023)

This depth of findings suggests a more rigorous analysis than the Certik report.

🔹 OtterSec Audit (Uploaded: May 12, 2023)

Notably, one unresolved concern involved swap functionality without pause-state verification, meaning trades could proceed even if a liquidity pool were paused — a potential exploit vector.

Another issue flagged was u256 to u64 type conversion, risking overflow during large transactions. Could this have played a role in the attack? Unclear — but it highlights how seemingly minor flaws can compound into serious vulnerabilities.

🔹 Zellic Audit (Uploaded: April 2025)

Zellic concluded these posed minimal threat — more about code cleanliness than critical flaws.

Despite multiple audits, Cetus was still compromised. This proves a vital lesson:

Multiple audits reduce risk — but do not eliminate it entirely.

How Top DEXs Approach Security

Let’s compare Cetus with other leading DEXs to see how industry leaders structure their security frameworks.

✦ GMX V2

GMX employs redundancy — multiple expert teams reviewing different aspects of the system. Combined with one of the largest bug bounties in DeFi, this creates layered defense.

✦ DeGate

Yes — thirty-five auditors. This level of scrutiny reflects extreme caution, especially given DeGate’s focus on privacy and compliance.

✦ dYdX V4

Though fewer auditors, Informal Systems is renowned for formal verification expertise — crucial for complex consensus logic.

✦ Hyperliquid

Self-auditing raises eyebrows, but substantial bounties help offset concerns by incentivizing external white hats.

✦ UniversalX

Even when audits exist, transparency matters. Temporary removal of reports can erode trust — even if justified.

✦ GMGN

Here lies the outlier. No third-party audit. Just a modest bounty. Despite aggressive KOL marketing, the lack of formal verification raises serious questions about long-term viability.

👉 See how top-tier platforms combine audits and bounties for maximum protection.


What Audit Practices Reveal About Project Quality

Audits aren’t just technical exercises — they signal intent.

SignalInterpretation
✅ Multiple reputable auditorsHigh commitment to security
✅ High-value bug bountiesConfidence in code + incentive for hackers to report
⚠️ Only Certik auditOften marketing-driven; limited technical depth
❌ No audit, only bountyRisky — may indicate cost-cutting or short-term goals

The choice of auditor matters too. Most firms specialize in EVM chains (Ethereum, BSC, etc.). Few have deep experience with Move-based ecosystems like SUI or Aptos. That’s why seeing MoveBit, OtterSec, or Zellic on an audit list carries extra weight.


Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q: Does having a code audit mean a project is safe?

A: Not necessarily. Audits improve security but don’t guarantee safety. Many audited projects have still been hacked due to logic flaws, zero-day exploits, or post-audit changes.

Q: Is Certik enough for DeFi security?

A: Rarely. While Certik adds visibility and some technical validation, relying solely on them is risky. Look for additional audits from niche or formal verification experts.

Q: What’s the difference between a code audit and a bug bounty?

A: A code audit is a structured review by professionals before launch. A bug bounty invites global hackers to find flaws continuously — complementary but not interchangeable.

Q: Should I avoid projects without audits?

A: Generally yes — especially for large investments. Unaudited protocols carry significantly higher rug-pull or exploit risk.

Q: Are self-audits trustworthy?

A: Only if backed by strong transparency, open-source code, and high-value bounties. Internal reviews lack objectivity; external validation is ideal.

Q: Why do some projects pay big bounties but skip audits?

A: It’s cheaper short-term. But skipping audits suggests prioritization of marketing over foundational security — a red flag.


Final Thoughts: Trust, But Verify

The Cetus incident reminds us that even multi-audited protocols can fail. Yet, the absence of audits — as seen with GMGN — makes failure far more likely.

As users, we must adopt a mindset of informed caution:

Security is not static. It requires continuous effort — from developers, auditors, and the broader community.

👉 Stay ahead of risks with platforms that prioritize transparent, multi-layered security practices.

While no system is foolproof, due diligence separates cautious investors from casualties. Always verify what’s behind the code — because in DeFi, your assets depend on it.