Widespread Adoption of AI Security Tools Drives Significant Decrease in Crypto Smart Contract Audit Costs
With the widespread adoption of AI-driven security tools (such as Mythos), the costs of auditing smart contracts in the crypto industry are rapidly decreasing, potentially fundamentally changing the due diligence standards before project launches.
AI enables low-cost vulnerability detection and real-time continuous monitoring, with basic audit costs approaching zero, while also simulating attack scenarios. However, it still struggles to cover complex risks such as economic models and social engineering.
In the future, projects that do not use AI-assisted audits may be seen as negligent, with expectations for industry security responsibilities rising, but a combination of AI tools and human experience will still be necessary.
Source: Public Information
ABAB AI Insight
The reliance on high-cost manual audits for crypto security has been disrupted by the proliferation of AI tools, continuing the trend of increased industry efficiency, with products like Mythos accelerating automation.
On the capital front, the decrease in audit costs lowers project entry barriers, concentrating resources on AI security tools and continuous monitoring platforms to enhance overall ecosystem security. Similar to the evolution of traditional software DevSecOps, the current state of crypto is in the early stages of transitioning AI audits from auxiliary to standard.
Essentially, this represents a technological substitution: AI real-time monitoring replaces one-time manual audits, directing capital towards low-cost, high-efficiency security solutions, facilitating a shift in crypto development from high barriers to inclusive security, while maintaining the core role of human judgment in complex risk assessment.
ABAB News · Cognitive Law
AI audit costs approaching zero surpass high manual prices: real-time monitoring fundamentally changes due diligence standards.
The proliferation of tools raises responsibilities: failure to use AI audits may be seen as developer negligence.
Human judgment remains irreplaceable: economic models and incentives still require human strategic insight.