0xTeam

• Name: 0xTeam
• URL: https://www.0xteam.space/
• Category: smart-contract security company / public audit-report operator / bug-bounty and security-tooling platform
• Summary: 0xTeam belongs as an entity note, not a protocol note. The useful cut is that a named security company packages audit delivery, a transparent public-report surface, a bug-bounty program, and in-house detection tooling under one operating shell. The practical leverage is not just in any single review; it sits in report-publication policy, throughput and scoring presentation, what gets exposed through the public audits surface, and whether the Leon and bounty layers become real downstream workflow dependencies.
• What it does:
  • Performs smart-contract audits, broader blockchain-security reviews, dapp and DeFi security work, and penetration testing
  • Publishes public audit pages with status, audit score, issue counts, timelines, chains, target scopes, and resolution data
  • Positions transparency and public final reports as part of its operating model rather than as occasional marketing collateral
  • Builds an in-house tooling layer that includes Leon, an AI smart-contract vulnerability detector, and a 0xTeam bug-bounty platform for crowdsourced review
  • Markets rapid quoting and fast turnaround as part of the client-service workflow
• Key claims:
  • The homepage describes 0xTeam as a Trusted Web3 Security Partner and frames its offer across smart-contract audits, blockchain security, dapp and DeFi security, and penetration testing
  • The solutions page describes a seven-step audit process spanning manual review, vulnerability analysis, automated analysis with tools such as Slither, Echidna, and Mythril, remediation review, and a final public report for full community transparency
  • The audits page claims more than 330 audits completed, more than $2.3B in value secured, 100% transparency, and a 48-hour average report timeline
  • The products page says Leon is an AI-powered smart-contract vulnerability detector and that the 0xTeam Bug Bounty product is a crowdsourced, community-driven security platform
  • The public DZap audit page shows the audit surface is more than static PDFs: it exposes audit score, chain, language, target module, issue counts, resolution rate, commit hashes, dates, and whether the audit is public
  • Taken together, the current first-party surface suggests 0xTeam is better analyzed as a public-audit and security-tooling company than as a standalone project or protocol
• Whitepaper: No canonical standalone 0xTeam whitepaper or litepaper surfaced in this pass. The strongest current sources of truth remain the official site, solutions page, public audits surface, individual audit pages, and products page; see ../whitepapers/0xteam-primary-sources-2026-05-01.md.
• Sources:
  • https://www.0xteam.space/
  • https://www.0xteam.space/solutions
  • https://www.0xteam.space/audits
  • https://www.0xteam.space/products
  • https://www.0xteam.space/audits/dzap

Why this company note belongs in the corpus

• There is no especially useful standalone 0xTeam protocol boundary doing analytical work here.
• The organization itself is the durable control surface: audit intake, report formatting and publication, scoring presentation, bounty operations, and the emerging Leon tooling layer all travel together under one named operator.
• That makes 0xTeam a better fit for companies/ than projects/, because the practical question is who runs the review-and-publication shell and related security workflow, not which neutral protocol primitive exists underneath.

Internal linkages

• Project-layer alias: 0xteam.
• Best adjacent company reads: code4rena, cantina, and sherlock.
• Stronger public-research and tooling anchors for comparison: trail-of-bits and ottersec.

Protocol / company boundary

• 0xTeam does have product-like surfaces, but they do not form a more useful standalone protocol boundary than the operator shell that owns them.
• The meaningful surface is the company-run bundle of review services, public audit publication, bug-bounty workflow, and AI-assisted tooling.
• That is why the canonical note lives in companies/: the practical dependency is on a named security operator and its workflow choices, not on an independent protocol.

Control surface

• Practical leverage sits in what gets admitted and published, how audits are scored and summarized, how quickly remediation review turns around, whether Leon or the bounty layer becomes sticky in customer workflow, and which public findings remain legible for ecosystem reuse.

• The company does not hold protocol admin keys, but it can still shape how teams buy security work, what the public learns from those engagements, and which tooling paths smaller teams adopt by default.

• Read 0xTeam as a security-review and report-publication company first, not as a protocol.

• Last reviewed: 2026-08-09 UTC