Shardeum? Really? An unreleased L1 that claims to have solved the blockchain trilemma—now that’s exactly the kind of experience I’d expect to see in a technical audit of a threshold encryption protocol… or maybe in a pitch for a perpetual motion machine.
Now jokes aside, this isn’t an isolated oddity—it’s part of a growing pattern.
Let’s look at the sequence:
- The same VC who is now backing this “technical audit” previously pushed for a financial audit—via their own handpicked auditor—in a proposal that aimed to cut funding from the core team. That vote failed.
- Now, we’re seeing backing for another auditor—Lumos—who not only lacks relevant experience in threshold encryption, but whose claim to fame is auditing Shardeum, a project that hasn’t launched and makes highly questionable promises.
- And yet somehow, Lumos is being pitched with a potential price tag as high as $35,530. That’s more than triple what’s been quoted by @cducrest, [RFP] Independant Auditor - cducrest, who actually has direct experience auditing projects for Gnosis, Safe, CoW Swap, and others in the Ethereum ecosystem.
- His proposal is detailed, methodical, and includes a track record of public and private audits, including top finishes in Code4rena and Sherlock competitions. Yet, strangely, we don’t see the same VC enthusiasm for this much more relevant and credible proposal.
Let’s also not ignore the context: This is happening alongside another RFP proposal (from a different VC in the same invite-only Telegram group) to replace the existing technical team—a team that’s currently shipping and already integrated with Gnosis Chain and has recently released the Shutter API.
It’s not inherently problematic to suggest new ideas or contributors. But when proposals, funding decisions, and now audits are being coordinated through private channels and championed without open community input or a clear, inclusive selection process—it undermines the credibility of governance.
If there’s truly a need for a technical audit—and maybe there is—it should go through a clearly defined, community-wide RFP process where proposals can be compared on merit, scope, and cost. That hasn’t happened here. No one voted to hire Lumos. There is, however, a legitimate alternative already on the table.
Let’s keep our standards high—and our processes higher.