Can you take over a smart contract or blockchain project from another vendor?

Yes, and it is a recurring part of our work. Kyoto Protocol came to Neti with an EVM-compatible Layer 1 built by a previous vendor that could not hold consensus, reorganising on a roughly 15-minute cycle. The configured QBFT consensus did not match the proof-of-stake model the project had committed to, so patching it would have compounded the risk. Neti rebuilt the foundation and delivered a working testnet in three months. A takeover starts with an audit of what exists and an honest answer to one question: is this cheaper to fix or to rebuild?

What does smart contract development include besides writing Solidity?

Architecture, permissions, upgradeability, integrations, testing, deployment strategy, and how the contracts behave alongside backend systems, wallets, and user flows. Most contract failures do not start with bad Solidity. They start at a boundary: an approval the contract assumed but the product did not enforce, an airdrop whose gas cost nobody modelled, or a governance step that stayed manual because nobody encoded it. The code was fine. The system around it was not.

Smart Contract Development Services for Production-Ready dApps and DeFi Products

Q: Which blockchains and token standards do you build smart contracts on?

Mostly EVM chains, in Solidity. In production Neti has shipped on Ethereum-compatible networks, Celo and Polygon for Cargo Protocol, Filecoin's FEVM with FVM actors for Filecoin Plus, and a permissioned Hyperledger Besu network with ERC-1155 asset lifecycle logic for a carbon credit registry. On standards: ERC-20 for token issuance and vesting, ERC-1155 for multi-state assets, and ERC-3643 for permissioned and regulated token transfers. Chain choice is usually downstream of a compliance or ecosystem constraint rather than a technical preference.

Neti is a smart contract development company for Web3, fintech, and protocol teams: we design and deliver smart contract systems for dApps, DeFi products, tokenized platforms, and on-chain business logic, with architecture, integrations, and upgrade paths decided before launch risk becomes expensive.

Review your smart contract architecture

120+

delivered projects

EVM & Solidity

smart contract expertise

Architecture-first

development model

Web3 engineering

since 2019

Production-focused

blockchain engineering team

What Smart Contract Development Services Include

Smart contract development services cover the full path from contract architecture to production operation: designing the on-chain logic, writing and testing the contracts, connecting them to wallets, backend services and external protocols, preparing them for a security audit, deploying to mainnet, and maintaining them after launch. Writing Solidity is the smallest part of that list.

A complete engagement usually includes:

Contract architecture and threat assumptions agreed before implementation

Solidity or Rust implementation with test coverage on every path that holds funds

Permission, role, and admin design, including what nobody is allowed to change

Integrations with wallets, backend systems, oracles, relayers, KYC, and payment providers

Upgrade strategy: proxy patterns and migration paths, or a deliberate decision to stay immutable

Audit preparation and remediation with a dedicated audit firm

Mainnet deployment, monitoring, and post-launch changes

Why Smart Contract Development Gets Risky in Production

Many teams can write and deploy smart contracts. The harder part is making them work safely inside a real product. Risk usually appears where contract logic meets wallets, backend services, frontend flows, relayers, KYC, payments, or external protocols. That is why Neti designs smart contracts around the full execution path, not just isolated code.

Expensive logic mistakes
Fragile contract and wallet interactions
Unclear permission and admin design
Broken dApp transaction flows
DeFi edge cases in staking, lending, or rewards
Upgrade assumptions that fail after launch

Smart Contract Development Risks We Help You De-Risk Before Launch

Smart contract bugs are expensive

In blockchain systems, logic errors can lock funds, break product flows, or require complex recovery after launch.

Product flows often break across contract boundaries

Smart contracts rarely fail alone. Problems appear when wallets, backend services, frontend flows, and protocol integrations do not behave as one system.

DeFi logic gets complex fast

Swaps, vaults, staking, rewards, permissions, accounting, and settlement create edge cases that only appear when the product starts behaving like a real financial system.

Teams underestimate launch risk

A contract can pass tests and still fail under real users, real assets, admin actions, upgrade decisions, or integration errors.

Upgrade paths are often decided too late

Without clear upgrade and governance assumptions, teams risk choosing flexibility where they need immutability, or immutability where the product still needs change.

Integrations create hidden failure points

Oracles, relayers, wallets, KYC checks, payment providers, and external protocols can introduce risks that are invisible in isolated contract testing.

Smart Contract Development Risks That Appear After Launch

Most smart contract failures do not start with bad Solidity syntax. They come from weak product logic, unsafe assumptions, and the complexity of running contracts in production.

Upgrade Mistakes

Poor proxy design, unsafe admin privileges, broken storage layouts, or upgrade paths that become impossible to use later.

Oracle Dependencies

Stale data, fragile price feeds, wrong assumptions about external systems, or single points of failure in critical flows.

Governance Risk

Excessive admin power, weak emergency controls, unclear roles, or governance paths that stall when fast decisions are needed.

Integration Failures

Backend services, frontend flows, wallets, relayers, KYC checks, bridges, or third-party systems that do not behave as expected in production.

Gas Inefficiency

High user costs, failed transactions, loops that do not scale, or contract designs that become too expensive as usage grows.

Logic Exploits

State assumptions, race conditions, rounding issues, reward abuse, access mistakes, or unexpected user behavior.

Smart contract systems Neti has delivered

Neti's smart contract development work covers DeFi mechanics, governance logic, token distribution, staking, and on-chain payment flows. Each project below required contract decisions that audited libraries and standard templates could not solve on their own.

FactoryDAO: Solidity contracts for voting, airdrops and staking

Neti wrote the Solidity contracts behind Influence.Vote, Bank.Vote and Yield.Vote: multichain governance voting, Merkle-proof token distribution, and staking with liquidity mining. Storing only the Merkle root on-chain kept large airdrops affordable.

Read case study

Cargo Protocol: DeFi smart contract development on Celo

Neti wrote the Solidity contracts that brought Uniswap V3 to Celo for the first time: a non-custodial liquidity aggregator with dynamic price ranges and autocompounding fees. The G-UNI pattern cut gas on rebalancing.

Read case study

MaxxChain/Invoice Contracts & USDC Settlement/Smart Contracts for Business Logic

MaxxChain: freight factoring logic moved into smart contracts

Neti wrote the Solidity contracts behind MaxxChain's freight factoring platform: invoice records created after broker confirmation, order book logic, and USDC payouts. The Web3 layer stays hidden behind a mobile app for non-crypto drivers.

Read case study

What Our Smart Contract Development Services Cover

We design and develop smart contract systems for dApps, DeFi products, tokenized flows, treasury operations, and production-grade on-chain applications, not isolated code demos.

DeFi Smart Contract Development

Swaps, lending flows, vaults, staking, fee routing, treasury controls, liquidation paths, and incentive logic for DeFi products.

Token Issuance & Token Flow Systems

ERC-20 tokens, vesting, emissions schedules, mint/burn logic, supply controls, and governed token operations.

Staking & Reward Systems

Staking mechanics, delegated rewards, emissions logic, cooldown periods, reward accounting, and participation incentives.

Treasury & Payment Flows

Multi-party settlement, recurring transfers, payout logic, treasury automation, permissions, and programmable finance flows.

Escrow & Marketplace Contracts

Escrow releases, milestone payments, marketplace settlement, dispute paths, royalties, and fee distribution.

Upgradeable Smart Contract Architectures

Proxy patterns, modular contracts, upgrade paths, admin controls, migration readiness, and long-term maintainability.

Our Smart Contract Development Process

Architecture and threat modelling

What the contracts must guarantee, who holds admin power, what happens when an integration fails, and which parts must never change. Output is a design, not a repository.

Blockchains, Languages, and Standards We Build On

Mostly EVM chains, in Solidity

Chain choice is usually downstream of a compliance or ecosystem constraint, not a technical preference, so we would rather discuss the constraint first.

Networks we have shipped on

Ethereum and EVM-compatible networks, Polygon, Celo, Filecoin FEVM with FVM actors, Hyperledger Besu (permissioned), Substrate-based chains.

Languages and runtimes

Solidity, Rust, EVM, FVM, Substrate.

Token standards

ERC-20 for token issuance and vesting. ERC-1155 for multi-state assets. ERC-3643 for permissioned and regulated token transfers.

Smart Contract Development Services for dApps, DeFi, and Tokenized Products

DeFi Teams Needing Smart Contract Development

For teams building exchanges, lending markets, yield products, staking systems, treasury flows, or token mechanisms that need secure smart contract development, production reliability, and careful handling of edge cases.

Startups Building Tokenized Products

For founders using smart contracts to create tokenized access, ownership, payments, rewards, vesting schedules, or asset-linked products where on-chain logic must support a real business model.

Platforms That Need Secure Smart Contract Logic

For products that need trust-minimized rules, automated execution, reliable ownership logic, transaction controls, permissions, or upgrade paths built into the smart contract layer.

Teams Automating Workflows with Smart Contracts

For businesses replacing spreadsheets, manual approvals, reconciliations, operator-heavy workflows, or fragmented settlement processes with programmable smart contracts and auditable on-chain logic.

Enterprises Building Smart Contract-Based Financial Logic

For companies evaluating programmable finance, treasury automation, settlement logic, tokenized processes, or digital asset infrastructure where smart contracts need to work with backend systems, compliance, and operations.

Web3 Teams Scaling Existing Smart Contracts

For teams that already have smart contracts in production or close to launch and need contract reviews, refactoring, integrations, upgrade paths, or custom extensions without breaking existing product logic.

What Smart Contract Development Helps You Build and De-Risk

What we can help with	What this helps you avoid
Smart contract development for dApps	Fragile contract logic that does not survive production
DeFi smart contract development	Edge cases in liquidity, staking, rewards, lending, or vault logic
Token flows, vesting, and settlement logic	Broken multi-step user flows across contracts, wallets, and backend systems
Staking, vault, and reward mechanisms	Accounting errors that become expensive after launch
Contract integrations with existing protocols	Hidden risks at the boundaries between contracts and external systems
Permission, role, and access-control design	Admin, upgrade, and ownership mistakes that are hard to reverse later
Smart contract architecture before implementation	Contract structures that block future product, compliance, or integration needs
Production-ready on-chain application logic	Smart contracts that pass tests but fail under real product and operational conditions

Why Choose Neti as Your Smart Contract Development Company

Neti combines smart contract development with architecture, delivery ownership, and production blockchain experience. We help teams define the right contract structure before implementation, reduce risk across permissions, integrations, and edge cases, and build on-chain logic that works inside real products. Our smart contract development services support DeFi products, dApps, tokenized assets, and broader blockchain infrastructure where contracts need to work with backend systems, wallets, and operational requirements.

Architecture Before Contract Code
Lower Smart Contract Delivery Risk
A Smart Contract Development Partner, Not Extra Hands
DeFi, dApp, and Tokenized Product Experience
Senior Blockchain Engineering Depth

FAQs

For a formal security audit before mainnet, you should use a dedicated audit firm. Neti is a delivery partner, not an audit house, and we will say so rather than sell you a review we are not set up to sign.

What we do instead is build contracts that survive an audit: threat assumptions agreed before implementation, permissions and admin roles defined explicitly, and test coverage on the paths that hold funds. We also review and take over existing implementations, which is a different exercise from a security audit and is covered in the next answer.

Yes, and it is a recurring part of our work. Kyoto Protocol came to us with an EVM-compatible Layer 1 built by a previous vendor that could not hold consensus: the chain reorganised itself on a roughly 15-minute cycle. The configured QBFT consensus did not match the PoS model the project had committed to, so patching it would have compounded the risk. We rebuilt the foundation and delivered a working testnet in three months.

A takeover starts with an audit of what exists and an honest answer to one question: is this cheaper to fix or to rebuild? Sometimes the answer is fix.

Mostly EVM chains, in Solidity. In production we have shipped on Ethereum-compatible networks, Celo and Polygon (Cargo Protocol), Filecoin's FEVM with FVM actors (Filecoin Plus), and a permissioned Hyperledger Besu network with ERC-1155 asset lifecycle logic for a carbon credit registry.

On standards: ERC-20 for token issuance and vesting, ERC-1155 for multi-state assets, ERC-3643 for permissioned and regulated token transfers.

The honest version of this answer is that chain choice is usually downstream of a compliance or ecosystem constraint, not a technical preference. We would rather discuss the constraint first.

Both, but smart contract work usually goes better as a scoped project with a named owner than as headcount.

Neti is based in Poland and works with EU and US teams in overlapping hours. Contract work tends to need a small senior team rather than a large one: the Liberland live-chain upgrade was over 20,000 lines of new code delivered in about two months by two Substrate engineers. That is the shape most of our contract engagements take.

It depends on how the original contracts were deployed. If an upgrade path was designed in, changes can go through proxy patterns or new modules. If the contracts are immutable, the options are new contracts alongside the old ones, migration, or changes in the surrounding architecture rather than on-chain.

The first step is always the same: read what is deployed and establish what is actually changeable, before agreeing what will change. Sometimes rebuilding selected logic is safer than modifying what already exists.

No. Upgradeability is a design decision, not a default requirement. Some products benefit from upgradeable contracts, others need simpler, immutable logic. Upgradeability adds admin power, and admin power is itself a risk: a proxy that can be changed is a proxy someone can be pressured to change.

We help teams weigh security, governance, admin control, compliance, and long-term flexibility before implementation starts.

Edge cases, accounting errors, permissions, protocol integrations, oracle assumptions, and multi-step user flows. In DeFi, small logic mistakes get expensive fast, because the contracts hold liquidity, rewards, staking, or vault positions.

The risk teams underestimate most often is cost of operation, not exploitability. On Cargo Protocol, the binding constraint was gas on

rebalancing: a vault that costs too much to rebalance simply stops being rebalanced, and the strategy quietly stops working. That is why we adopted the G-UNI pattern there.

Architecture, permissions, upgradeability, integrations, testing, deployment strategy, and how the contracts behave alongside backend systems, wallets, and user flows.

Most contract failures we have seen did not start with bad Solidity. They started at a boundary: a broker approval that the contract assumed but the product did not enforce, an airdrop whose gas cost nobody modelled, a governance step that stayed manual because nobody encoded it. The code was fine. The system around it was not.

It depends on the scope of the on-chain logic, the number of integrations, whether the contracts need to be upgradeable, and how deep the audit has to go. Those four things move the number far more than the amount of Solidity.

The cost most teams forget to budget is operational, not development: a security audit with a dedicated firm is a separate line, and gas is a design constraint that can quietly break an otherwise correct product. We price after the architecture conversation, because pricing before it means pricing a guess.

Contract work tends to need a small senior team rather than a large one, and the timeline follows scope rather than headcount. Two concrete data points from our own delivery: we rebuilt Kyoto Protocol's EVM-compatible Layer 1 and shipped a working testnet in three months, and the Liberland live-chain upgrade delivered in about two months by two Substrate engineers.

A focused contract system with a handful of integrations is usually weeks, not quarters. Audit and remediation sit on top of that and are worth planning for from day one.

Solidity on EVM chains for most work, Rust where the runtime requires it, plus FVM actors on Filecoin and Substrate for chain-level work. On standards: ERC-20 for issuance and vesting, ERC-1155 for multi-state assets, ERC-3643 for permissioned and regulated transfers.

Tooling matters less than people think. What decides whether contracts survive is where the test coverage sits, not which framework produced it.

Both are possible, but smart contract work usually goes better as a scoped project with a named owner than as headcount added to your team. Neti is based in Poland and works with EU and US teams in overlapping hours.

If you already have engineers and need contract-specific depth, we also review, refactor, extend, and take over existing implementations without rewriting what already works.

Connect with Neti on Your Blockchain Roadmap

We partner with teams building blockchain infrastructure, payment systems, tokenization platforms, and protocol-based products. Our initial consultations focus on architecture, technical direction, delivery risks, and production readiness. If blockchain is the optimal path, we’ll help you define the most strategic next step.

Sławomir Paśko

Founder & CEO

/slawomirpasko

Sylwia Chmurkowska

COO

/sylwia-chmurkowska

Seweryn Ostrowski

CTO

/seweryn-ostrowski

Smart Contract Development Services for Production-Ready dApps and DeFi Products

What Smart Contract Development Services Include

A complete engagement usually includes:

Why Smart Contract Development Gets Risky in Production