TL;DR
This proposal explores evaluating a proactive smart contract security layer to complement GMX’s existing audits and monitoring by applying continuous static analysis, unit test generation, mutation testing, and an internal audit agent leveraging deterministic architecture to surface findings and automatically generate bug proof of concepts earlier in development, before audits and deployment.
Summary
GMX is one of the most widely used decentralized perpetuals protocols in DeFi, operating complex systems that manage liquidity, pricing, and user positions at scale. Security is already treated as a top priority through audits, transparency, and ongoing monitoring.
This proposal suggests evaluating a proactive security layer that runs automatically on every code change to surface vulnerabilities and implementation issues earlier in the SDLC, before progressing to audits or deployment. The goal is to assess whether earlier signal can reduce noise, strengthen test suites, and help downstream security efforts focus on higher value review and verification.
Motivation
GMX has consistently invested in audits and external security reviews. These remain essential, especially given the protocol’s complexity and exposure to market driven edge cases.
In practice, audits are most effective when lower level bugs, incorrect assumptions, and implementation noise have already been addressed earlier in development. Automated SDLC tooling helps clear away issues that are not the target of audits, allowing security reviews to be more comprehensive, efficient, and resilient.
As GMX evolves with new features, upgrades, and integrations across chains, a layered and shift left security approach is worth evaluating as part of the protocol’s long term security posture.
Problem Statement
While GMX already benefits from audits, bug bounties, and monitoring, there is an opportunity to evaluate whether security can be strengthened earlier in the development lifecycle:
-
Small or incremental changes can introduce risk between audits
-
Developers benefit from faster, automated feedback during active development
-
Audits are not optimized to wade through noisy, low level bugs
-
Earlier SDLC tooling may enable a layered, shift left security approach
Evaluating automated security tooling earlier helps determine whether later stage audits and reviews can focus more on the semantic and economic properties that matter most.
How Mature Teams Sequence Security Tooling
Teams operating security at scale tend to follow a layered funnel rather than relying on a single technique:
-
Static analysis to remove obvious and structural flaws early
-
Unit testing and mutation testing to ensure developer intent is exercised
-
Invariant and property testing to validate core protocol assumptions
-
Audit and review to apply human judgment where automated methods fall short
Skipping earlier layers makes downstream techniques slower, more brittle, and more expensive. A proactive SDLC layer may help narrow the funnel so audits can operate on cleaner, higher signal code.
Proposed Evaluation Approach
Evaluate a proactive smart contract security toolkit that integrates into existing development workflows and runs automatically on every code change. The evaluation would apply static analysis, automated unit test generation, mutation testing, and an internal audit agent leveraging deterministic architecture to surface findings and automatically generate bug proof of concepts.
The goal is to assess whether this approach can surface vulnerabilities earlier, strengthen test suites, and improve developer velocity by automating multiple forms of testing during development rather than adding another point in time review.
This evaluation model has been used in other ecosystems, including an active engagement with the Uniswap Foundation, where similar tooling is being assessed to improve early stage security testing and downstream audit outcomes.
Scope
A practical first step would be a limited evaluation run against a pre audit commit of already audited GMX code. This would allow the community to review signal quality, benchmark findings against prior audits, and determine usefulness before considering any broader proof of concept.
Potential scope includes:
-
Integration with existing repositories and CI workflows
-
Automated testing on every code change
-
Reporting focused on actionable findings and generated bug proof of concepts
Exact scope and duration would be defined collaboratively.
Relationship to Existing Security Efforts
This proposal is intentionally additive and exploratory. It does not replace audits, monitoring, or bug bounties. It evaluates whether strengthening earlier stages of the SDLC can improve the effectiveness of downstream security processes.
Expected Benefits
-
Earlier visibility into potential vulnerabilities during development
-
Stronger and more comprehensive test suites
-
Improved effectiveness of audits through reduced noise
-
Better developer feedback loops via automated, continuous testing
Next Steps
If there is interest from the community, the next step would be to run a limited evaluation on existing GMX code to demonstrate effectiveness and benchmark results, followed by discussion of whether a scoped proof of concept makes sense.
Happy to answer questions or refine scope based on community feedback.