Hacken's approach on this is solid. Running audits across core L1 infrastructure, state transitions, precompiles, and IBC protocols represents the kind of security validation you actually need before networks see serious traffic. The real test comes through execution: bridge EVM assets into Cosmos via IBC, trigger precompile interactions, then monitor transaction receipts under actual load conditions. When traffic scales up and the system stays stable—no crashes, no degradation—that's when you know the foundation holds. This isn't about chasing TPS metrics. It's about proving the architecture doesn't break when it matters.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
15 Likes
Reward
15
9
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
OneBlockAtATime
· 01-18 10:28
I just like this grounded attitude, no more playing those virtual TPS number games.
View OriginalReply0
AltcoinMarathoner
· 01-15 18:53
ngl, this is exactly the kind of unglamorous infrastructure work that separates runners from sprinters. most chains chase numbers, hacken's actually stress-testing the foundation. mile 20 energy right here.
Reply0
BlockchainBouncer
· 01-15 15:19
It seems that Hacken has finally got the auditing right, not just theoretical discussions on paper, but real stress testing is the true test.
View OriginalReply0
MEVSandwich
· 01-15 13:12
NGL Hacken's process is indeed reliable. Without hype or criticism, only through this kind of stress testing can issues be identified.
View OriginalReply0
NeonCollector
· 01-15 13:12
Hacken's auditing approach is indeed reliable, not just some theoretical talk.
View OriginalReply0
TokenomicsTrapper
· 01-15 13:12
lol "foundation holds" — yeah until the first major exploit drops and suddenly everyone's shocked pikachu face. been through this dance before, actually if you read the contract specs they're already cutting corners on the precompile validation. called this months ago btw.
Reply0
TokenomicsTherapist
· 01-15 13:08
Hacken's audit process is serious and not just theoretical talk. The real test is how it performs in a real environment, so don't just focus on TPS and boast.
View OriginalReply0
LiquidityWitch
· 01-15 13:00
NGL Hacken's audit process is indeed reliable. The real test is whether it can withstand the pressure after going live.
View OriginalReply0
VitaliksTwin
· 01-15 12:47
Hacken's audit process is indeed reliable; the real test is whether it can withstand traffic surges after going live.
Hacken's approach on this is solid. Running audits across core L1 infrastructure, state transitions, precompiles, and IBC protocols represents the kind of security validation you actually need before networks see serious traffic. The real test comes through execution: bridge EVM assets into Cosmos via IBC, trigger precompile interactions, then monitor transaction receipts under actual load conditions. When traffic scales up and the system stays stable—no crashes, no degradation—that's when you know the foundation holds. This isn't about chasing TPS metrics. It's about proving the architecture doesn't break when it matters.