Smart contracts auditing companies like @trailofbits @ConsenSys Diligence or @OpenZeppelin should provide insurance services for smart contracts they are confident in.
Companies and users could pay x% per year to cover potential fund losses held or managed by some contracts.
Absolutely not. That's an extraordinary transfer of risk from the company who _owns_ the code to a 3rd party service provider. The product owner needs to take responsibility for the code they wrote, not try to transfer risk to anyone but themselves.
-
-
Are you saying there is no profit to be made in the business of smart contract insurance?
-
I said nothing about profit in my two replies.https://twitter.com/dguido/status/1182841047363264512 …
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Further, it creates a perverse incentive that harms the ability for a security firm to provide advice, making any relationship with such a firm adversarial and tainting the ability to communicate and freely report results. This is one of the community's worst ideas.
-
It still makes sense for auditors to partner with insurance companies serving end-consumers, not the projects. All the code is open source anyway. Chances are there's more money in this market.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.