Blockchain Security Training That Goes Beyond Theory
September 2025 cohort applications opening soon
We built this program after watching talented developers struggle with real blockchain vulnerabilities. Standard courses teach Solidity basics, but smart contract exploits happen in the spaces between functions—where logic meets incentive design and theory crashes into actual user behavior.
Questions We Answer at Each Stage
Most programs teach content. We address the actual questions participants ask us when working through real security challenges. Here's what people typically wonder at different points.
Before Starting
- Do I need prior auditing experience, or can I come from general development?
- How much Solidity knowledge is actually necessary?
- What's the time commitment when you're working full-time?
- Will this prepare me for practical audit work or just concepts?
During Training
- How do you identify vulnerabilities that aren't in textbooks?
- What tools do professional auditors actually use daily?
- How do you write findings that clients take seriously?
- When should I trust my instincts versus formal verification?
After Completion
- How do I position myself for audit opportunities?
- Should I freelance or join an existing audit firm?
- What ongoing learning matters most?
- How do you stay current when attack vectors constantly evolve?
Why Question-Based Learning Works
Traditional training dumps information in sequential modules. But that's not how real security thinking develops—you encounter a puzzling transaction pattern, wonder why it exists, then chase down the answer across multiple knowledge domains.
Our approach mirrors that natural curiosity. When you're staring at a DeFi protocol with strange access control patterns, you need specific answers to targeted questions—not chapter summaries of access control theory.
Real Audits We Break Down Together
These aren't sanitized case studies. We examine actual contracts we've audited, including the missed vulnerabilities, false positives, and judgment calls that defined each engagement. Participant names changed, but the security lessons stayed real.
DeFi Lending Platform
Client wanted a standard security check before launch. Initial review looked clean—standard patterns, well-tested libraries. But the liquidation logic had a subtle reentrancy path that only appeared under specific collateral ratio conditions. Formal verification tools missed it because the vulnerability existed in business logic, not code structure.
NFT Marketplace Contract
The code was actually secure—properly tested, clean architecture, no obvious vulnerabilities. What wasn't secure was the incentive structure. Users could game the fee mechanism by splitting transactions in specific patterns. Not a code exploit, but a design flaw that would hemorrhage value.
DAO Governance System
Beautiful code. Extensive tests. Complete disaster waiting to happen. The voting mechanism allowed someone to borrow tokens, vote, return them, and repeat—essentially renting voting power. Legal from a code perspective. Catastrophic from a governance perspective.
How Our Approach Differs From Standard Training
We're not dismissing other programs—many teach solid fundamentals. But blockchain security education often stops where the interesting problems begin. Theory matters, but so does recognizing that sinking feeling when contract behavior doesn't match documentation.
This comparison isn't marketing. It's our honest assessment after years of working with developers from various training backgrounds. Some patterns we noticed kept recurring.
| Learning Aspect | Traditional Courses | Our Program | Why It Matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vulnerability Examples | Historical exploits from 2020-2022 | Active contracts from current ecosystem | Attack patterns evolve—yesterday's examples teach outdated thinking |
| Tool Training | How to run Slither, Mythril | When tools mislead, how to verify findings | Automated scanners generate false positives that waste client time |
| Code Review Practice | Simplified educational contracts | Production code with unclear documentation | Real audits involve messy codebases and incomplete specifications |
| Finding Documentation | Template formats for reporting | Writing findings that prompt action | Technically correct reports that clients ignore are worthless |
| Economic Analysis | — | Many vulnerabilities are incentive problems, not code problems | |
| Client Communication | — | Developers get defensive—framing matters as much as findings | |
| Ongoing Support | Forum access after graduation | Monthly technical discussions with working auditors | Security landscape changes monthly—static knowledge degrades fast |
What Past Participants Actually Said
These are unedited messages from people who completed the program. We didn't cherry-pick the glowing ones—these represent typical feedback about what surprised them most.
I thought I understood Solidity pretty well after three years of building dApps. This program showed me I'd been writing vulnerable code the whole time—just never got exploited because nobody noticed. The section on economic attack vectors changed everything about how I evaluate contract safety.
Best part wasn't the technical content—other courses cover similar ground. It was learning how to communicate findings without making developers defensive. That skill alone made the program worth it, because previously I'd find issues and then watch teams ignore them because I framed things poorly.
The monthly check-ins after graduation matter more than I expected. Blockchain security changes so fast that my knowledge from the core program would be outdated by now without those ongoing technical discussions. It's basically continued learning disguised as alumni networking.