Provider directory · Technical review not assessed
HashEx
Review the source evidence before requesting a proposal. Confirm that the assigned team, scope and deliverables match your project.
Official provider website
Evidence and engagement scope
Source check: . A provider statement is attributed information. A confirmed field refers only to the cited artifact.
- Audit networks
- Ethereum, Solana, ArbitrumProvider statement · Checked 2026-09-05. Stated on the provider website; scope must be agreed for each engagement. Source for audit networks
- Audit languages
- Solidity, Rust, FunCProvider statement · Checked 2026-09-05. Stated on the provider website; scope must be agreed for each engagement. Source for audit languages
- Services and methods
- Smart contract audit, Incident responseProvider statement · Checked 2026-09-05. Stated on the provider website; scope must be agreed for each engagement. Source for services and methods
- Protocol types in reviewed reports
- Token sale and liquidity lockingConfirmed in cited evidence · Checked 2026-09-05. Types observed in the report examples below, not an exhaustive provider portfolio. Source for protocol types in reviewed reports
- Current pricing
- Request a scoped quote; no current price verifiedInsufficient evidence · Checked 2026-09-05. Not established from the public sources checked in this pass. Request current evidence from the provider.
- Availability
- Confirm directly with providerInsufficient evidence · Checked 2026-09-05. Not established from the public sources checked in this pass. Request current evidence from the provider.
Public report examples
These observations apply to named scopes and code revisions. They do not establish the safety of a current deployment.
ApeSwap IAZO
Audit completed (provider index): . Source checked .
- Protocol type
- Token sale and liquidity locking
- Scope
- IAZO sale, factory, settings, locker, timelock and proxy contracts on Binance Smart Chain.
- Code revision
- 74a5d9f → 1fe0548
- Follow-up evidence
- The PDF identifies the revision rechecked. The provider index lists 18 resolved, one partially fixed and four acknowledged findings.
- Limit
- Historical Solidity engagement. Counts retain the provider’s status categories and do not establish present deployment safety.
Sources were checked on September 5, 2026. This is a bounded public-source review, not a technical endorsement. Report examples cover named versions only. Confirm the proposed scope, price and available team with the provider.
DSA research and technical review
HashEx analysis: report evidence and historical limits
This provider has a structured source record. A dedicated original technical dossier has not yet been completed. See the directory-wide evidence study for the source-check method and limitations.
No independent committee assessment or technical score has been issued. The proposed review procedure requires two qualified reviewers, conflict checks, recent relevant reports and supported findings across seven criteria.
What to include in your request
- Code repository, intended revision, chain, language and protocol design.
- High-risk operations, trust assumptions, privileged roles and exclusions.
- Target start, budget, release deadline and required fix-review allowance.
- A request for three recent comparable project reports and the reviewers assigned to your project.