hacks of dapps are common.

is it because most devs are idiots?

is it because solidity is fundamentally hack-prone?

would there be as much hacks if most dapps were written in vyper/glow-lang?

2 Answers 2


I would claim it's a combination of a few things. The first two are closely interconnected:

  1. New ecosystem and new language. Everything is new and most things are still rather experimental.

  2. Developers adopting a new language and new ecosystem. Nobody has much experience yet. Developer tooling is still quite rudimentary. Online resources are either outdated or inadequate

  3. Get-rich-quick attitude: fork existing successful projects with no real understanding of the codebase, cross your fingers and deploy. Most crypto projects need to be implemented ASAP (or preferably yesterday)

I would not blame Solidity and I don't believe things would be any better with some other language. The ecosystem is simply young and complicated.

In five years I believe things have settled down a bit and better general standards and templates are in use.


is it because most devs are idiots?

No, this is because most of the "investors" are idiots.

They invest and give money for the projects that do not have solid fundamentals to be long term viable. Part of this, is of course, because dev teams are amateur. But it does not make a dev idiot by taking money from idiots - it is the idiots who give the money in the first place.

would there be as much hacks if most dapps were written in vyper/glow-lang?

Likely no. Currently, most of the hacks and vulnerabilities are either intentional (insider, "rug pull") or economic (not understanding market dynamics).

  • 1
    Dev teams maybe amateur but their contracts undergo auditiing phase. The auditing company puts its reputation if they miss fundamental weakness, no?
    – rlib
    Commented Jun 5, 2021 at 15:24
  • This is how it works in theory, but in practice audits are just PDFs generated by command line tools. There hasn't been a single audit company who would have gone out of business, or even got less business, because of the bad audit report So your assumption sounds nice, but is totally incorrect. Commented Jun 7, 2021 at 8:34

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.