Security audits: scope and limitations

This page summarises the two audits of the $HYPER ERC-20 contract — Coinsult and SolidProof — that have been verified from primary sources, and analyses their scope and limitations. It draws an explicit distinction between these token audits and audits of the Layer 2 protocols, the bridge, the sequencer and the other components of the architecture. The page is updated as soon as new verifiable public information becomes available.

Accessed today

⚠ Scope and limitations of the published audits

The two audits presented here relate to the ERC-20 contract of the HYPER token, address 0xA86c39fa8341aDC5219f355468fc78Cec7e8702B on Ethereum (deployed 2 May 2025, Solidity, total supply 21,000,000,000 HYPER).

These audits are not evidence 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 expressly notes that its audit relates only to a single token contract and not to the other contracts associated with the project. These components make up an essential part of the attack surface of the Layer 2 architecture as described by the project.

The promotional claim “Bitcoin Hyper has been audited” must be read precisely: audits exist for the token’s ERC-20 contract, but they provide no basis for concluding that the Layer 2 protocols, the bridge, the sequencer or the proving system have been audited. They provide information on certain risks associated with the token contract, but not on all the architectural risks of the proposed system.

📖 Editorial note

This analysis is drawn from Due Diligence of a Layer 2 – The Bitcoin Hyper Case by Michele Stefanelli (first English edition, July 2026). A fuller treatment of the methodology for assessing the security audits of pre-mainnet crypto projects is available in chapter 21 of Volume I and chapter 34 of Volume II, or in the due-diligence checklist.