Finding the right security partner is critical for complex blockchain infrastructure, which is why we have compiled this list of the Top Asian auditors for Layer-1 and Layer-2 code (10 ranked). Unlike a single decentralized application, a blockchain protocol can expose multiple attack surfaces across consensus logic, execution environments, cryptography, validators, bridges, RPC infrastructure, smart contracts, and cross-chain communication. For teams building or launching infrastructure in Asia, choosing the right security firm requires more than comparing the number of audits a company claims to have completed.
A strong auditor should understand the technical architecture behind the code being reviewed and, ideally, have experience across the relevant ecosystem. Some firms are particularly suited to EVM-based protocols and rollups, while others bring expertise in Move, Rust, zero-knowledge systems, cross-chain infrastructure, or blockchain-level security. Current 2026 comparisons also increasingly distinguish between smart contract audits and deeper Layer-1/Layer-2 protocol assessments.
This ranking focuses on established security firms with meaningful Asian market relevance, public audit evidence, recognizable technical capabilities, and coverage that can be relevant to Layer-1, Layer-2, smart contract, or blockchain infrastructure projects. It is an editorial comparison rather than a claim that one auditor is universally better than another.
Top Asian auditors for Layer-1 and Layer-2 code (10 ranked)
1. Beosin
Best for: Multi-chain blockchain security, smart contracts and protocol-level security
Beosin is one of the strongest options to consider when looking for Asian smart contract auditors with broad blockchain-security capabilities. Founded in China, the firm combines smart contract auditing with blockchain monitoring, threat intelligence and cryptocurrency tracing, giving it a broader security perspective than a company focused exclusively on pre-deployment code review.
Its public audit library includes work involving blockchain protocols and smart contracts across different ecosystems. Beosin’s documented methodology has included formal verification, static analysis, sandbox testing and manual line-by-line review. Its public materials also show audit work involving projects such as Ronin Network and Self Chain.
For Layer-1 and Layer-2 teams, the main advantage is breadth. A project that needs smart contract review alongside broader blockchain security, threat monitoring or post-deployment analysis may find this model useful.
Why it ranks highly: Beosin offers a relatively complete security stack rather than treating the audit as an isolated code-reading exercise.
Good fit for: Multi-chain protocols, DeFi infrastructure, blockchain networks, bridges and projects that need security services beyond a single smart contract audit.
2. BlockSec
Best for: EVM infrastructure, DeFi protocols, L2 ecosystems and attack monitoring
BlockSec is a China-based blockchain security company with roots in academic security research. Its headquarters are associated with Hangzhou and Hong Kong, and its security platform includes Phalcon, which focuses on transaction simulation and real-time attack monitoring. Publicly documented coverage includes ecosystems such as Ethereum, BNB Chain, Arbitrum, Base, Optimism, Avalanche and zkSync.
This makes BlockSec particularly interesting for teams working around the EVM and Layer-2 landscape. Its value proposition extends beyond finding individual coding mistakes: protocol teams can also think about how suspicious transactions, exploit paths and fund movements could be detected after deployment.
BlockSec has also appeared in public audit histories for major DeFi infrastructure. That makes it a strong candidate when the project requires both pre-launch review and a security mindset that extends into production.
Why it ranks highly: Strong alignment between smart contract auditing, protocol security and real-time attack detection.
Good fit for: EVM protocols, DeFi applications, bridges, L2 deployments and teams that want monitoring capabilities alongside auditing.
3. SlowMist
Best for: Broad blockchain ecosystem security and threat intelligence
SlowMist is one of the more established names among Asian smart contract auditors, particularly for projects that need security expertise extending beyond smart contracts. Founded in 2018, the company describes itself as a blockchain ecosystem security and threat intelligence firm, with services covering smart contract auditing, exchange security, wallet security, threat intelligence and defensive deployment.
Its regional footprint is also notable. SlowMist has described Hong Kong as its global headquarters base, with additional operations in China, Japan and Singapore.
For Layer-1 and Layer-2 projects, this broader security orientation can be useful because protocol risk rarely ends at the Solidity layer. Wallet infrastructure, operational security, private keys, exchange integrations and incident response can all become part of the overall threat model.
Why it ranks highly: Strong regional presence and a security model that extends from code auditing into threat intelligence and incident defense.
Good fit for: Blockchain infrastructure, exchanges, wallets, major Web3 platforms and protocols requiring broader security coverage.
4. PeckShield
Best for: High-volume blockchain security and multi-chain smart contract auditing
PeckShield is another major China-based name in the Asian blockchain security ecosystem. Based in Chengdu, the company has been active since 2018 and combines smart contract auditing with security intelligence and real-time monitoring. Its public audit history includes work across EVM and other blockchain environments.
For Layer-1 and Layer-2 teams, PeckShield can be particularly relevant where the engagement involves complex DeFi contracts or a broader ecosystem security review. Its research and public exploit-disclosure activity also gives it visibility into how vulnerabilities translate into real-world attack patterns.
At the same time, teams should evaluate an auditor based on the exact engagement team and scope rather than assuming that a large audit portfolio automatically means a deeper review for every project.
Why it ranks highly: Long-standing Asian blockchain security presence with substantial auditing and threat-intelligence experience.
Good fit for: DeFi protocols, token infrastructure, multi-chain applications and projects seeking a large, established security provider.
5. Salus Security
Best for: ZK, smart contract security and emerging Web3 infrastructure
Singapore-based Salus Security has built a notable position around smart contract auditing, Web3 penetration testing and zero-knowledge security. Its own materials emphasize Proof-of-Concept reporting and detailed vulnerability analysis rather than relying solely on automated scanning.
Salus is particularly relevant for newer blockchain architectures where conventional Solidity auditing is not enough. Public audit records show work across EVM and other ecosystems, including projects involving Bitcoin-related infrastructure and emerging DeFi systems.
The firm’s Singapore base also makes it an interesting option for projects operating within the Southeast Asian Web3 ecosystem.
Why it ranks highly: Strong combination of smart contract auditing, PoC-driven methodology and ZK-oriented security expertise.
Good fit for: ZK projects, DeFi protocols, cross-chain infrastructure and teams developing newer blockchain primitives.
6. QuillAudits
Best for: Multi-chain smart contract audits and growing Web3 teams
QuillAudits is an India-based security provider with a substantial public audit portfolio. Its current materials describe a combination of AI-assisted analysis and human security review, while its public case studies demonstrate work across ecosystems including Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum and Base.
The firm is particularly relevant for teams that need a multi-chain smart contract audit without necessarily engaging one of the largest global security consultancies. Its work on Arbitrum and Base is directly relevant to the growing Layer-2 environment. If you are looking for top RWA tokenization companies, you will find that the region is increasingly becoming a hub for both technical security and ecosystem growth.
QuillAudits also positions its service around more than simple vulnerability scanning, combining manual reviews, fuzzing and security validation.
Why it ranks highly: Strong multi-chain coverage and substantial activity in the Indian and wider Asian Web3 ecosystem.
Good fit for: DeFi, DEXs, tokenization platforms, Layer-2 applications and Web3 startups preparing for deployment.
7. Zokyo
Best for: Protocol audits combined with broader Web3 security
Zokyo takes a somewhat broader approach to blockchain security. Its current service portfolio covers smart contract audits, protocol audits, cryptography audits, penetration testing and source-code review. The firm says its protocol audits can extend to consensus mechanisms, networking layers and cryptographic implementations rather than stopping at application-level contracts.
That distinction makes Zokyo relevant to Layer-1 and Layer-2 teams whose security requirements go beyond Solidity. Its public report library also provides a substantial record of smart contract and protocol engagements across ecosystems such as Ethereum, Arbitrum, Solana and NEAR.
Zokyo operates as a global security collective with personnel across multiple regions, including India and Singapore, making it relevant to the Asian security market even though it is not simply an Asia-only provider.
Why it ranks highly: The distinction between smart contract auditing and deeper protocol security is particularly useful for L1/L2 projects.
Good fit for: Blockchain protocols, cryptography-heavy projects, DeFi infrastructure and teams requiring multiple security disciplines.
8. Tribyte Labs
Best for: Hong Kong-based Web3 protocol and smart contract security
Tribyte Labs is a Hong Kong-based Web3 technology and security company focused on smart contract auditing, formal verification, blockchain security monitoring and technical consulting. Its stated client scope includes public blockchains, DeFi platforms and decentralized applications.
Its combination of development and security experience can be useful for projects where auditors need to understand the underlying protocol architecture rather than simply identify standard vulnerability patterns.
Tribyte is smaller than some of the better-known names on this list, but it is still relevant for an Asia-focused ranking because of its Hong Kong base and direct emphasis on blockchain protocols and smart contract security.
Why it ranks highly: A focused regional option with an emphasis on blockchain development as well as security.
Good fit for: Public blockchain teams, DeFi protocols and projects seeking a Hong Kong-based security partner.
9. SecuriChain
Best for: Smart contract security combined with penetration testing
SecuriChain is a Singapore-based blockchain security provider offering smart contract auditing alongside penetration testing, incident response and managed detection services. Its stated audit workflow includes automated analysis, manual code review, reporting and verification of fixes.
For projects that have both on-chain and traditional application attack surfaces, this broader cybersecurity model can be useful. A Layer-2 application, for example, may involve smart contracts, APIs, front-end infrastructure and operational systems that cannot be adequately evaluated through a smart contract-only audit. In these complex environments, one might wonder about the best crypto SEO agencies to manage the infrastructure effectively.
SecuriChain is therefore better viewed as a regional cybersecurity option with blockchain specialization rather than purely a protocol-audit boutique.
Why it ranks highly: Its Singapore base and combination of blockchain auditing with conventional cybersecurity services make it relevant for teams with a wider attack surface.
Good fit for: Web3 applications, smart contracts, DeFi platforms and projects requiring both blockchain and application security testing.
10. Hacken
Best for: Dedicated Layer-1 and Layer-2 protocol audits
Hacken is headquartered in Estonia rather than Asia, so it is included here for a different reason: its documented work and methodology have significant relevance to Asian blockchain ecosystems. The firm’s current protocol-security methodology explicitly covers Layer-1 and Layer-2 blockchain systems, including architecture, cryptography, consensus, networking, storage, RPC and execution environments.
Its work with Asia-focused ecosystems also makes it relevant to teams in the region. For example, Hacken has published multiple audits related to Kaia, an Asian-focused blockchain ecosystem formed from Klaytn and Finschia, and has worked on other Layer-2 infrastructure serving markets across Asia and beyond.
Why it ranks here: It is not an Asian-headquartered auditor, but its L1/L2 specialization makes it difficult to omit from a practical Asia-focused comparison.
Good fit for: Layer-1 networks, Layer-2 protocols, blockchain infrastructure and teams needing a dedicated protocol-security methodology.
What Should a Layer-1 or Layer-2 Audit Actually Cover?
Choosing among Asian smart contract auditors should start with the architecture of the project rather than the auditor’s headline number of completed audits. A Layer-1 blockchain may require examination of consensus, validator logic, networking, peer-to-peer communication, cryptographic implementations, storage, RPC endpoints and execution environments. A Layer-2 system may additionally require scrutiny of bridges, sequencers, fraud or validity proofs, message passing and settlement logic.
For an EVM-based Layer-2, the audit scope may include Solidity contracts, upgradeability mechanisms, cross-domain messaging and bridge contracts. For a ZK rollup, the security model may also depend on circuits, proof generation, verification logic and cryptographic assumptions. For Move-based ecosystems, auditors need to understand resource-oriented programming and the security properties of Move itself.
This is why a project should ask an auditor to provide a written scope before signing an engagement. The same company can be an excellent choice for a Solidity application but a less suitable choice for a protocol involving custom consensus or cryptographic primitives.
Layer-1 vs. Layer-2 Security Audit: What Is Different?
A Layer-1 audit generally evaluates the underlying blockchain itself. Important areas can include consensus, networking, cryptography, validator behavior, transaction processing and execution.
A Layer-2 audit focuses more heavily on how the scaling system interacts with its underlying Layer-1. Depending on the architecture, this can include sequencers, bridges, state commitments, fraud proofs, validity proofs, message relayers, withdrawal mechanisms and upgrade controls.
That difference matters when comparing auditors. A company advertising hundreds of smart contract audits does not necessarily have the same depth in consensus or protocol engineering as a firm that explicitly publishes a Layer-1/Layer-2 methodology.
How to Choose Among Asian Smart Contract Auditors
Before requesting proposals, protocol teams should prepare a clear technical package containing the repository, commit hash, architecture documentation, deployed addresses, dependencies, known assumptions, test coverage and a description of privileged roles. The more precisely the scope is defined, the easier it becomes to compare proposals from different auditors.
A useful shortlist should also ask:
- Does the auditor have experience with the exact blockchain architecture?
- Can it review the programming language used by the protocol?
- Does the engagement include manual review?
- Are fuzzing, symbolic execution or formal verification appropriate for the project?
- Will the auditor provide Proof-of-Concept demonstrations for important findings?
- Is remediation verification included?
- Are bridge and cross-chain components explicitly in scope?
- Does the final report identify the exact commit that was reviewed?
- Does the firm publish previous audit reports or methodology documentation?
- Can the same team support post-deployment monitoring or incident response if needed?
Most importantly, an audit should not be treated as a guarantee that a protocol is secure. Public audit documentation itself commonly states that an assessment covers the submitted code and cannot guarantee that every vulnerability has been discovered. A protocol should therefore combine audits with testing, monitoring, access-control design, bug bounties and disciplined deployment processes.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What are Asian smart contract auditors?
Asian smart contract auditors are blockchain security firms headquartered in, operating from, or strongly active across Asian markets that review smart contracts, blockchain protocols and related infrastructure. The category includes firms based in China, Hong Kong, Singapore and India, as well as international auditors with substantial activity across Asian ecosystems.
2. Can a smart contract auditor review Layer-1 code?
Some can, but not every smart contract auditor should be considered a Layer-1 security specialist. A genuine Layer-1 review can require knowledge of consensus, networking, cryptography, storage and execution environments in addition to smart contracts. Teams should verify that these areas are explicitly included in the proposed scope.
3. Are Layer-2 audits different from smart contract audits?
Yes. A Layer-2 audit can involve smart contracts but may also require analysis of bridges, sequencers, state commitments, cross-domain messaging, fraud proofs, validity proofs and interactions with the underlying Layer-1. The required expertise depends heavily on the architecture.
4. How many auditors should a blockchain project hire?
There is no universal number. A complex or high-value protocol may benefit from multiple independent reviews because different teams can approach the same architecture from different perspectives. A second audit can be especially useful after substantial code changes or when the first audit had a narrower scope.
5. Does passing a security audit mean a protocol is safe?
No. An audit is a point-in-time assessment of a defined scope and code version. It reduces risk but does not prove that a system contains no vulnerabilities. Continuous testing, monitoring, access-control reviews, incident-response preparation and bug bounties can provide additional layers of defense.
