Ackee Blockchain Security

EVMbench for Solana: Trident Arena, a multi-agent AI security scanning solution. 21 out of 30 critical/high-severity vulnerabilities found across 6 open source Solana code bases in benchmarks. 70%+ true positive rate. See it in action: During a manual audit, TridentArena helped us find a critical-severity issue (later fixed), making @MetaDAOProject even more secure. Built by the School of Solana senior auditors, securing leading protocols. Time to IBRL of Solana security audits! Launch blog post: ackee.xyz/blog/trident-a… Request access → tridentarena.xyz Follow @TridentSolana for product updates and insights.

Learn how to set up our fuzzing framework @TridentSolana, write a test to catch a real program vulnerability, and monitor the results. Thank you @mikehale & @Quicknode @QuicknodeSolana for collaborating with us on this deep dive. ↓ x.com/QuicknodeSolan…

🗣️ It’s important to talk about stuff. 👉 @jgattermayer @jgorzny @eomjipark

Get started with @WakeFramework for Solidity development and testing to prevent protocol-breaking vulnerabilities in your EVM project: x.com/WakeFramework/…

Our auditors have already discovered dozens of vulnerabilities in major Solana protocols. Don't miss the opportunity to work with Solana OGs and get in touch at the link below.

Building on Superchain? Get audited: ackee.xyz/contact

Trusted by Lido, AAVE, and Safe to secure billions in TVL. Now securing Optimism's ecosystem projects, including Vfat, through OP grant funding.

The jump from Wake Arena 3.0 to 3.1 is a +21 percentage point increase in detection rate. 3.0 at 46% → 3.1 at 67% Frontier LLMs plateau around 44%. That ceiling is real: more compute, better prompts, same result. The staircase: Opus 4.5 (22%) GPT-5 (26%) GPT-5.2 xhigh (44%) = Zellic v12 (44%) Wake Arena 3.0 (46%) Wake Arena 3.1 (67%). Breaking through that ceiling required a different architecture. Not a different prompt. Learn more ↓

Learn how to set up our fuzzing framework @TridentSolana, write a test to catch a real program vulnerability, and monitor the results. Thank you @mikehale & @Quicknode @QuicknodeSolana for collaborating with us on this deep dive. ↓

Our team is in Cannes at @EthCC. Are you coming? DM us to meet ↓

Ackee is coming to @EthCC – let's talk security, fuzzing, and AI solutions for smart contract auditing. Reach out to schedule a meeting: @jgattermayer @0xTomass @jaczkal @tldrteo See you in Cannes!

Security is only as strong as the weakest link. You can have great fuzzing and still lose funds to: • weak access control • unsafe dependencies • missing monitoring/response • social engineering in ops Treat security as a system: code quality + testing + fuzzing + audits.

What builders get: • One CLI command to deploy the staking product-related contracts • White-label embeddable widget for websites or apps DeFi Wrapper and connector contracts are audited by @MixBytes and @AckeeBlockchain: #01-2026-mixbytes-lido-defi-wrapper-security-audit-report" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">docs.lido.fi/security/audit…

You can prompt Claude or GPT to review your Solana code. Or you can ask Trident Arena. One catches ~33% of critical/high vulnerabilities. The other 70%. Same code. Same task. Very different outcomes. Thread ↓

Wake Arena keeps getting better. v3.1 widens the performance gap vs plain frontier LLMs. Why is this crucial? Because this performance gap is exactly what protects protocols from malicious actors using AI to hack them. On this dataset of 6 protocols with 44 known critical/high-severity vulnerabilities from historic competitions: Wake Arena v3.1 found 24/44 (55%), outperforming • Wake Arena v3 by 71% • Plain GPT-5 by 167% • Plain Opus 4.5 by 243%. NOTE: Preliminary results. Full benchmarks coming ↓

Ackee's Solana team is growing! @AlexanderGreyDT's power combo of sales and tech skills will ensure every project is fuzzed with @TridentSolana. And, Sven @unofficialtool brings the networking skills from @SolanaCZE to scale ecosystem security. Welcome to the team!

Fork testing against mainnet tokens shouldn't require 40 lines of setup before you write a single assertion. The real problem is subtle. Different token implementations have different minting patterns, approval workflows, and transfer restrictions. Every ERC standard behaves slightly differently. Teams end up testing their setup code more than their actual protocol logic. Wake's minting functions bypass all of it by writing directly to storage slots. Three lines: pick a token, mint to a test user, call your contract. The same approach works for ERC-721 and ERC-1155. Version 5 adds the other side of the lifecycle. burn_erc721 and burn_erc1155 give complete control over token state from creation to destruction, no more hunting for whale accounts or navigating custom burn logic. One caveat worth repeating: these functions simplify logistics, not due diligence. Integration testing still requires understanding how the contracts you're integrating actually work. Learn how to cut token test setup to three lines ↓