Deployed code is close to permanent and the bugs cost money rather than embarrassment. We build smart contracts with the threat model written down first, full test coverage on the money paths, and a clear position on who audits the result. $40 to $100 per hour, published.
Almost nothing that drains a contract is novel. Reentrancy on an external call, an access control check that was never applied to the admin function, an oracle that can be moved within a single block, a proxy upgrade that collides with existing storage. These are in every security checklist published in the last five years and they keep working, because the pressure to ship a token launch beats the pressure to finish the tests.
We work the other way around. The threat model and the invariants come before the implementation, the money paths get adversarial tests rather than happy path tests, and the upgrade mechanism is a decision with a written rationale rather than a library someone imported. That is slower to start and considerably cheaper than an incident.
Six pieces of work, described so you can tell whether we have done them before.
Get the hour band before you get a proposal
Tell us the chain, what the contract holds and who is allowed to move it. That is enough for a range on the first call.
Most things pitched as needing a blockchain do not. What follows is the honest split, and we would rather lose the project than build the wrong one.
Unlike traditional services, we use the best methods to quickly and efficiently create advanced technology solutions. Our approach ensures not only speed but also quality, guaranteeing that your project reaches its full potential.
Rates are $40 to $100 per hour by role. Front end and integration work around the contract sits near the floor. Contract architecture, security review and anything holding user funds sits at the ceiling, because the review burden is where the hours genuinely go. A mixed team blends to $60 to $70, and that blend is the number worth planning against.
We do not give a fixed price before discovery. A contract that mints a fixed supply token and a contract that runs a lending pool differ by an order of magnitude in review effort, and a number quoted before we know which one you need is padded for our uncertainty. You will get an hour band on the first call, and the code sits in your repository from day one.
Have a contract already written?
Send us the repository and the chain. You get a written security review with severities, whether or not you continue with us.
Five commitments written so they are checkable rather than flattering. The second one costs us work and we publish it anyway, because you will find out eventually and it is better that you hear it from us.
Rates are $40 to $100 per hour by role, blending to $60 to $70 on a mixed team. The spread between a simple contract and a complex one is mostly review effort rather than implementation effort: a fixed supply token is a small job, while anything pooling or lending user funds carries a review burden several times larger than the code it covers. We give an hour band on the first call once we know what the contract holds and who can move it, and a fixed price after discovery. Budget separately for an independent third party audit if user funds are involved.
We perform a structured internal security review against the known vulnerability classes and deliver it as a written report with severities. It is not an independent audit, because we are reviewing our own work and cannot be neutral about it. For a contract holding meaningful user funds you should commission a third party audit as well, and we will hand over the threat model and test suite to make that engagement shorter and cheaper. Treat any vendor whose own review is presented as sufficient with suspicion.
It is a genuine trade, not a best practice. Upgradeable means you can fix a bug, and it also means users must trust whoever holds the admin key not to change the rules. Immutable means the rules are guaranteed and a bug is permanent. Our default is immutable for simple value logic and upgradeable behind a multisig with a timelock for anything complex enough that a bug is likely. We write the rationale down either way.
It follows from where your users and liquidity already are, what transaction costs your use case can absorb, and which tooling your team can maintain. Ethereum has the deepest tooling and the highest fees; the established layer twos cut fees while keeping the same contract language; other chains trade ecosystem depth for throughput. We would rather talk through your constraints than name a chain on a web page.
A straightforward token or vesting contract with proper tests is usually a few weeks. Anything that pools user funds takes months, and most of that is test and review rather than implementation. If a vendor quotes you a fast timeline on a contract holding other people's money, they are planning to skip the part that protects you.
That depends entirely on decisions made before deployment, which is why we make them explicitly. With an upgradeable contract behind a timelock there is a path to patch. With an immutable contract the options are a migration to a new deployment and a pause function if one was designed in. We write the incident plan during the build, because the worst time to invent one is during an exploit.
Yes. Send the repository and the chain and you get a written security review with severities, whether or not you continue with us. If we find something critical you will hear about it immediately rather than at the end of a reporting cycle.
Often not, and we will say so. The test is whether parties who do not trust each other need to agree on state without appointing someone to hold it. If everyone involved already trusts the same company, a database with signed audit entries is cheaper, faster, private, and fixable. We would rather lose the project than build an expensive database with worse privacy.
You do. We design the custody model, recommend a multisig with named signers for anything privileged, and hand over before launch. A deployment key sitting in one developer's environment is a single point of failure and we will not leave you with one.
No, and this is worth being firm about. On-chain data is public and effectively permanent, which conflicts directly with any deletion right your users have. Keep the data off-chain under your own control and put a hash on-chain if you need to prove it has not changed.
The chain, what the contract holds, who is allowed to move it, and any constraint your legal counsel has already set. That is enough for an hour band on the first call. The full invariant specification is the first deliverable, not a prerequisite.
Real feedback from the people we've proudly partnered with.
Sales Director |Cintas
United States
Zyneto Global Technologies provided excellent project management and technical expertise throughout the engagement. The team was responsive, collaborative, and adaptive, ensuring the project met our expectations and set a strong foundation for future growth.
Founder & CEO |Moneteo
We engaged Zyneto to design and develop a custom web platform for Moneteo, aimed at improving project management, data tracking, and collaboration across internal teams and external partners. Their work included full-stack web development, custom modules for workflow automation, API integration, and comprehensive testing.
CEO |E-Commerce Platform
Overall, their responsiveness and timely deliveries contributed positively to the project's success. The client achieved better data management and quality. The service provider delivered the project on time and ensured prompt responsiveness throughout the engagement. Their innovative approach was outstanding.
Practical guides and analysis on smart contract development, written by the team that builds it.
