Security audits: scope and limits

This page brings together the two audits of the $HYPER ERC-20 smart contract — Coinsult and SolidProof — checked against primary sources, and analyses their scope and their limits. It keeps those token audits clearly separate from any audit of the Layer 2 protocol, the bridge, the sequencer and the other architectural components. The page will be updated as new verifiable public information becomes available.

Accessed: 10 August 2026

⚠ The scope and limits of the published audits

Both of the audits presented here cover the ERC-20 smart contract of the HYPER token, at address 0xA86c39fa8341aDC5219f355468fc78Cec7e8702B on the Ethereum network (deployed 2 May 2025, Solidity, total supply 21,000,000,000 HYPER).

It cannot be concluded from these audits that the bridge, the sequencer, the SVM Relay Program, the generation or verification of ZK proofs, or the Data Availability model have been audited. SolidProof states that its review covers a single token smart contract only, and not the other smart contracts associated with the project. Those components make up a significant part of the attack surface of the Layer 2 architecture described by the project.

The claim repeated so often in promotional material, “Bitcoin Hyper has been audited”, needs to be read precisely: audits of the token's ERC-20 smart contract do exist, but it does not follow that the Layer 2 protocol, the bridge, the sequencer or the proof system have been audited. They tell you something about certain risks attached to a token smart contract, not about the architectural risks of the whole proposed system.

📖 Editorial note

This analysis draws on Michele Stefanelli's book „Due Diligence of a Layer 2 – The Bitcoin Hyper Case“ (first English edition, July 2026). For a fuller discussion of how to assess security audits of crypto projects, see chapters 21 and 34 of the book, or the due diligence checklist.