⚒️ Smart Contract Security Researcher | 💻 Full-Stack Developer |🕵️♀️ Private Audits | 🤖 AI Audits & Engagements | 🏆 Public Contests
Joined April 2025
- Tweets308
- Following268
- Followers147
- Likes615
Pinned Tweet
Another 🏆 - Top 10 out of 1009 auditors.
There were days I didn’t feel like doing this at all.
Still showed up.
That’s the difference.
Go get your W.
Thanks @sherlockdefi 🫡
Velev retweeted
Sherlock won't reward you for your work!
I've spoken with a guy at Sherlock about their rules. More specifically, the ratio rule that locks your money until you fix your rate. Let me explain... 🙃
If you still don't know, Sherlock has crafted a ratio in your profile that tracks how many of your findings are valid and invalid, by which it calculates your "accuracy rate."
The reason for creating it was the large amount of low-effort submissions and spam with shitty findings. It's obvious that if you don't have something to lose, you spam tons of shitty findings. But if you get your rewards locked due to a screwed rate because of being lazy or crappy, you would work your ass off next time.
In my case, what screwed my rate was the learning part of my journey. When I started back in 2025, I really didn't have a clue how the platforms worked, how the issues were being judged, and let's be honest, I was dumb as hell at auditing.
But how you got your ratio screwed doesn't matter that much. Yes, it still matters because if you can't fix it, you might need to go back and learn again, but in general, my point is different here.
My point, and basically the discussion with the guy at Sherlock, was whether this rule still applies and works fairly for SRs.
Imagine that your rate is screwed (my case, and surely the case for a lot of SRs). You have a few rewards, but because of the rule they are locked, and now you should fix your rate. According to the current market (and in my opinion, the future one as well), where there are barely any contests - like one every few months from a specific platform - fixing your rate can take a really long time.
Let's suppose there are 10 contests in a year (IMO this would decrease in the future, not the opposite), and let's imagine that you submit 3 findings, 2 of which are valid and 1 is invalid. These are actually pretty good results, to be honest. I've seen top SRs miss these targets, which is totally fine. So with simple math, you understand that you need to grind for around a year in order to unlock what you've already worked for and won, and eventually any newer rewards.
Well, let's be honest, with AI, competitors that try so hard to invalidate your issues for their own bigger rewards, and judges, this can be extended indefinitely.
So you grinded, you won, but you're not going to receive your money (kind of okay depending on the rule). But the frustrating part is that there are no options to get what you've worked for and leave. You are attached to it, forced to keep participating, or you lose your money.
This whole post is not about feeling sorry for me. It's not about spitting on Sherlock's name. It's not about "crying" for money or making excuses for me being dumb when I started.
It's about fairness for the SRs in the space. It's about getting what you've won, earning what you've worked for, and getting paid for the value you provided.
So what is a potential fix for this situation - even though I know that @sherlockdefi might not implement it?
Limit the submission count of SRs based on their ratio instead of locking their money. Similar to CodeArena, where if you submit too many sh*tty findings, your available submission count decreases.
What are the results? The spam is still reduced and controlled, SRs are rewarded fairly, and they have the option to participate or not participate.
What are your thoughts on that? Are you in such a situation, or do you know someone who is? What is your solution? Should it be changed to be fairer for SRs?
A repost would help me reach more opinions! 🙏
Hello, @sherlockdefi. Is that impossible rule still in effect? It seems like your contests have stopped?
So, you still don't agree that the rule is unfair?
Sherlock won't reward you for your work!
I've spoken with a guy at Sherlock about their rules. More specifically, the ratio rule that locks your money until you fix your rate. Let me explain... 🙃
If you still don't know, Sherlock has crafted a ratio in your profile that tracks how many of your findings are valid and invalid, by which it calculates your "accuracy rate."
The reason for creating it was the large amount of low-effort submissions and spam with shitty findings. It's obvious that if you don't have something to lose, you spam tons of shitty findings. But if you get your rewards locked due to a screwed rate because of being lazy or crappy, you would work your ass off next time.
In my case, what screwed my rate was the learning part of my journey. When I started back in 2025, I really didn't have a clue how the platforms worked, how the issues were being judged, and let's be honest, I was dumb as hell at auditing.
But how you got your ratio screwed doesn't matter that much. Yes, it still matters because if you can't fix it, you might need to go back and learn again, but in general, my point is different here.
My point, and basically the discussion with the guy at Sherlock, was whether this rule still applies and works fairly for SRs.
Imagine that your rate is screwed (my case, and surely the case for a lot of SRs). You have a few rewards, but because of the rule they are locked, and now you should fix your rate. According to the current market (and in my opinion, the future one as well), where there are barely any contests - like one every few months from a specific platform - fixing your rate can take a really long time.
Let's suppose there are 10 contests in a year (IMO this would decrease in the future, not the opposite), and let's imagine that you submit 3 findings, 2 of which are valid and 1 is invalid. These are actually pretty good results, to be honest. I've seen top SRs miss these targets, which is totally fine. So with simple math, you understand that you need to grind for around a year in order to unlock what you've already worked for and won, and eventually any newer rewards.
Well, let's be honest, with AI, competitors that try so hard to invalidate your issues for their own bigger rewards, and judges, this can be extended indefinitely.
So you grinded, you won, but you're not going to receive your money (kind of okay depending on the rule). But the frustrating part is that there are no options to get what you've worked for and leave. You are attached to it, forced to keep participating, or you lose your money.
This whole post is not about feeling sorry for me. It's not about spitting on Sherlock's name. It's not about "crying" for money or making excuses for me being dumb when I started.
It's about fairness for the SRs in the space. It's about getting what you've won, earning what you've worked for, and getting paid for the value you provided.
So what is a potential fix for this situation - even though I know that @sherlockdefi might not implement it?
Limit the submission count of SRs based on their ratio instead of locking their money. Similar to CodeArena, where if you submit too many sh*tty findings, your available submission count decreases.
What are the results? The spam is still reduced and controlled, SRs are rewarded fairly, and they have the option to participate or not participate.
What are your thoughts on that? Are you in such a situation, or do you know someone who is? What is your solution? Should it be changed to be fairer for SRs?
A repost would help me reach more opinions! 🙏
204
Congratulations to everyone who received a payment.
Unfortunately, I am not among them... and I probably won't be... 😕
Sherlock won't reward you for your work!
I've spoken with a guy at Sherlock about their rules. More specifically, the ratio rule that locks your money until you fix your rate. Let me explain... 🙃
If you still don't know, Sherlock has crafted a ratio in your profile that tracks how many of your findings are valid and invalid, by which it calculates your "accuracy rate."
The reason for creating it was the large amount of low-effort submissions and spam with shitty findings. It's obvious that if you don't have something to lose, you spam tons of shitty findings. But if you get your rewards locked due to a screwed rate because of being lazy or crappy, you would work your ass off next time.
In my case, what screwed my rate was the learning part of my journey. When I started back in 2025, I really didn't have a clue how the platforms worked, how the issues were being judged, and let's be honest, I was dumb as hell at auditing.
But how you got your ratio screwed doesn't matter that much. Yes, it still matters because if you can't fix it, you might need to go back and learn again, but in general, my point is different here.
My point, and basically the discussion with the guy at Sherlock, was whether this rule still applies and works fairly for SRs.
Imagine that your rate is screwed (my case, and surely the case for a lot of SRs). You have a few rewards, but because of the rule they are locked, and now you should fix your rate. According to the current market (and in my opinion, the future one as well), where there are barely any contests - like one every few months from a specific platform - fixing your rate can take a really long time.
Let's suppose there are 10 contests in a year (IMO this would decrease in the future, not the opposite), and let's imagine that you submit 3 findings, 2 of which are valid and 1 is invalid. These are actually pretty good results, to be honest. I've seen top SRs miss these targets, which is totally fine. So with simple math, you understand that you need to grind for around a year in order to unlock what you've already worked for and won, and eventually any newer rewards.
Well, let's be honest, with AI, competitors that try so hard to invalidate your issues for their own bigger rewards, and judges, this can be extended indefinitely.
So you grinded, you won, but you're not going to receive your money (kind of okay depending on the rule). But the frustrating part is that there are no options to get what you've worked for and leave. You are attached to it, forced to keep participating, or you lose your money.
This whole post is not about feeling sorry for me. It's not about spitting on Sherlock's name. It's not about "crying" for money or making excuses for me being dumb when I started.
It's about fairness for the SRs in the space. It's about getting what you've won, earning what you've worked for, and getting paid for the value you provided.
So what is a potential fix for this situation - even though I know that @sherlockdefi might not implement it?
Limit the submission count of SRs based on their ratio instead of locking their money. Similar to CodeArena, where if you submit too many sh*tty findings, your available submission count decreases.
What are the results? The spam is still reduced and controlled, SRs are rewarded fairly, and they have the option to participate or not participate.
What are your thoughts on that? Are you in such a situation, or do you know someone who is? What is your solution? Should it be changed to be fairer for SRs?
A repost would help me reach more opinions! 🙏
6
1,735
As if to spite the post, there are two competitions that Sherlock started today.
Well, I won't be participating - my schedule is packed with other things right now.
The fact that the contests launched on the same day actually shows that the rule isn't working well. It’s obvious you can't devote enough time to both simultaneously, so it's better to focus on just one. We're leaving AI aside because... well, we want to fix that hopeless ratio, remember?
Well @sherlockdefi, what are my options to receive my money?
Sherlock won't reward you for your work!
I've spoken with a guy at Sherlock about their rules. More specifically, the ratio rule that locks your money until you fix your rate. Let me explain... 🙃
If you still don't know, Sherlock has crafted a ratio in your profile that tracks how many of your findings are valid and invalid, by which it calculates your "accuracy rate."
The reason for creating it was the large amount of low-effort submissions and spam with shitty findings. It's obvious that if you don't have something to lose, you spam tons of shitty findings. But if you get your rewards locked due to a screwed rate because of being lazy or crappy, you would work your ass off next time.
In my case, what screwed my rate was the learning part of my journey. When I started back in 2025, I really didn't have a clue how the platforms worked, how the issues were being judged, and let's be honest, I was dumb as hell at auditing.
But how you got your ratio screwed doesn't matter that much. Yes, it still matters because if you can't fix it, you might need to go back and learn again, but in general, my point is different here.
My point, and basically the discussion with the guy at Sherlock, was whether this rule still applies and works fairly for SRs.
Imagine that your rate is screwed (my case, and surely the case for a lot of SRs). You have a few rewards, but because of the rule they are locked, and now you should fix your rate. According to the current market (and in my opinion, the future one as well), where there are barely any contests - like one every few months from a specific platform - fixing your rate can take a really long time.
Let's suppose there are 10 contests in a year (IMO this would decrease in the future, not the opposite), and let's imagine that you submit 3 findings, 2 of which are valid and 1 is invalid. These are actually pretty good results, to be honest. I've seen top SRs miss these targets, which is totally fine. So with simple math, you understand that you need to grind for around a year in order to unlock what you've already worked for and won, and eventually any newer rewards.
Well, let's be honest, with AI, competitors that try so hard to invalidate your issues for their own bigger rewards, and judges, this can be extended indefinitely.
So you grinded, you won, but you're not going to receive your money (kind of okay depending on the rule). But the frustrating part is that there are no options to get what you've worked for and leave. You are attached to it, forced to keep participating, or you lose your money.
This whole post is not about feeling sorry for me. It's not about spitting on Sherlock's name. It's not about "crying" for money or making excuses for me being dumb when I started.
It's about fairness for the SRs in the space. It's about getting what you've won, earning what you've worked for, and getting paid for the value you provided.
So what is a potential fix for this situation - even though I know that @sherlockdefi might not implement it?
Limit the submission count of SRs based on their ratio instead of locking their money. Similar to CodeArena, where if you submit too many sh*tty findings, your available submission count decreases.
What are the results? The spam is still reduced and controlled, SRs are rewarded fairly, and they have the option to participate or not participate.
What are your thoughts on that? Are you in such a situation, or do you know someone who is? What is your solution? Should it be changed to be fairer for SRs?
A repost would help me reach more opinions! 🙏
1
5
2,855
Sherlock won't reward you for your work!
I've spoken with a guy at Sherlock about their rules. More specifically, the ratio rule that locks your money until you fix your rate. Let me explain... 🙃
If you still don't know, Sherlock has crafted a ratio in your profile that tracks how many of your findings are valid and invalid, by which it calculates your "accuracy rate."
The reason for creating it was the large amount of low-effort submissions and spam with shitty findings. It's obvious that if you don't have something to lose, you spam tons of shitty findings. But if you get your rewards locked due to a screwed rate because of being lazy or crappy, you would work your ass off next time.
In my case, what screwed my rate was the learning part of my journey. When I started back in 2025, I really didn't have a clue how the platforms worked, how the issues were being judged, and let's be honest, I was dumb as hell at auditing.
But how you got your ratio screwed doesn't matter that much. Yes, it still matters because if you can't fix it, you might need to go back and learn again, but in general, my point is different here.
My point, and basically the discussion with the guy at Sherlock, was whether this rule still applies and works fairly for SRs.
Imagine that your rate is screwed (my case, and surely the case for a lot of SRs). You have a few rewards, but because of the rule they are locked, and now you should fix your rate. According to the current market (and in my opinion, the future one as well), where there are barely any contests - like one every few months from a specific platform - fixing your rate can take a really long time.
Let's suppose there are 10 contests in a year (IMO this would decrease in the future, not the opposite), and let's imagine that you submit 3 findings, 2 of which are valid and 1 is invalid. These are actually pretty good results, to be honest. I've seen top SRs miss these targets, which is totally fine. So with simple math, you understand that you need to grind for around a year in order to unlock what you've already worked for and won, and eventually any newer rewards.
Well, let's be honest, with AI, competitors that try so hard to invalidate your issues for their own bigger rewards, and judges, this can be extended indefinitely.
So you grinded, you won, but you're not going to receive your money (kind of okay depending on the rule). But the frustrating part is that there are no options to get what you've worked for and leave. You are attached to it, forced to keep participating, or you lose your money.
This whole post is not about feeling sorry for me. It's not about spitting on Sherlock's name. It's not about "crying" for money or making excuses for me being dumb when I started.
It's about fairness for the SRs in the space. It's about getting what you've won, earning what you've worked for, and getting paid for the value you provided.
So what is a potential fix for this situation - even though I know that @sherlockdefi might not implement it?
Limit the submission count of SRs based on their ratio instead of locking their money. Similar to CodeArena, where if you submit too many sh*tty findings, your available submission count decreases.
What are the results? The spam is still reduced and controlled, SRs are rewarded fairly, and they have the option to participate or not participate.
What are your thoughts on that? Are you in such a situation, or do you know someone who is? What is your solution? Should it be changed to be fairer for SRs?
A repost would help me reach more opinions! 🙏
I shipped 4 triages and 1 PoC write-up last month, and I really enjoyed the work.🔥
I believe this IS future. The more we rely on AI, the more we'll need people who can understand, validate, and judge the issues it produces.
AI is good then - and only then -when you confirm that it is good.
3
97
I was invited as Triage at @PashovAuditGrp. It was really nice. My teammate was awesome.
Thanks for the opportunity, more to come.🫡
2
43
1,903
The end of Code4rena. This was the place where a lot of normal people become one of the stronges SR in the space.
Sad times. 🫥
21
499
This is the most turbulent time in the crypto space I have ever seen.
I know it is hard and sometimes it feel like there is no point in continuing.
The night is darkest just before the sunrise.
Keep pushing!
11
292
Velev retweeted
We made contract.dev exists to fix one thing: most smart contracts ship without ever being tested in real production conditions.
> spin up a private testnet that mirrors mainnet in real time
> import your repo, deploy, get live analytics on tvl, share price, and balances
> break things here, not in front of users
Nice code. Nice project. Nice team.
It was a pleasure to audit this one.🫡
SBSecurity 🤝 @ShiftProtocol_
V2 audits done
Shift V2 brings better vault standards, cleaner flows, and a fast withdrawal mechanism. We went through it all to make sure it ships safe.
Happy to be Shift's Official Security Partner and be part of what's coming next.
1
7
316
Are you a founder shipping this soon?
Quick check:
Your contracts are "almost done" but nobody's tried to break them yet?
You've used AI tools for review but aren't sure what they missed?
You want a real audit but don't need a 6-week enterprise process?
You'd sleep better knowing someone manually traced every path?
If you nodded at 2 or more - DM me.
I do focused private audits for lean teams. No fluff reports, no 40-page gas optimization lists. Just the findings that matter before you launch.
2
135
One question that catches 50% of the bugs I find:
"What happens if this is called in an order the developer didn't expect?"
That's it. Not fancy tooling. Not symbolic execution. Not formal verification.
Just - what if someone doesn't play nice?
Every function you write assumes a happy path. Attackers don't take the happy path. Think like them.
1
120
