Dan Guido

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 …

Firms should hire @trailofbits because I'll pledge to never gamble against my own clients or abuse insider information for personal profit. Users should know that our reports are never tainted by a personal profit motive. Avoid hiring anyone who won't do the same.

It's so extraordinarily unethical to be granted direct, unfettered access to a firm's engineering team, then turn around and gamble with that knowledge in a 3rd party betting pool. Think of the second order effects knowing that your security firm will start placing bets on you.