Bug bounty programs can't stop hackers? Samczsun says protocol security is still missing a crucial step

Question

【Coinpost】Founder of Security Alliance, Samczsun, recently voiced a controversial opinion: Relying solely on code audits, formal verification, and hefty bug bounty programs can’t effectively stop hackers. He believes the true missing step in protocol security is the annual review—regular, periodic reassessments.

Let’s talk about bug bounty programs first. Many think that increasing the reward to exorbitant levels will attract white-hat hackers to find vulnerabilities first, but Samczsun directly pointed out: that’s just gambling on white hats outrunning black hats. With the same budget, instead of pouring everything into a single bounty, it’s more practical to conduct multiple rounds of audits over several years.

Even more critical is the mismatch between risk and budget. As a protocol’s TVL increases, the risk indeed grows linearly, but what about the security budget? It often remains stagnant. The real hidden danger is that—audit reports are essentially snapshots at a certain point in time; they expire. Protocols are continuously iterated, and environments are constantly changing. What does an audit conclusion from half a year ago prove? The only way to reassess is to perform a new audit.

Samczsun offers a prescription for the crypto industry in 2026: make annual reviews a standard practice. Protocols with soaring TVL should be re-evaluated thoroughly; auditing firms also need to adjust their service models to focus specifically on complete deployments. The industry must change a misconception—that an audit report is a permanent talisman. It’s just a periodic health check that will eventually expire.

BearHugger · Accepted Answer

Is an audit report just an outdated snapshot? That's harsh. No wonder so many projects pass audits but still get exposed and blown up.

SignatureAnxiety · Answer

Oh wow, you're absolutely right. The bounty system has long been a case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Annual audits should really become standard practice. It seems like many projects just do the audit and then ignore it, as if changing the code doesn't matter.

Is the security budget still the same despite the surge in TVL? That logic is outrageous.

Just throwing money around is useless; continuous monitoring is still necessary.

RektRecovery · Answer

ngl samczsun's just describing security theater at scale... we've been watching protocols do the audit dance for years and it's always the same ending. bug bounties are just expensive band-aids fr

MetamaskMechanic · Answer

That's right, spending millions on rewards at once is not as good as spreading investments for continuous audits. I respect this logic.

Once the protocol starts iterating, previous audit reports are basically worthless.

Betting on white hats to run fast? That's purely relying on luck; black hats don't play fair at all.

TVL surges, security budgets remain the same. Isn't that inviting disaster?

Actually, annual reviews are the right long-term strategy for confrontation.

Are there really that many white hats? The key is who offers a higher price.

Code audits are like regular health checkups; once a year is the only way to feel secure.

Many project teams actually don't take this matter seriously at all.