Services
Blockchain Development Services
We build smart contracts and dApps in Solidity, targeting Ethereum mainnet and the major L2s — Arbitrum, Optimism, and Base. Audit-ready code, Foundry-tested, deployed and verified on Etherscan from a reproducible pipeline.
What is blockchain development at TPC?
Blockchain development means writing Solidity that has to be right the first time, because deployed contracts are immutable and value flows through them. We approach smart-contract work the way other firms approach safety-critical embedded systems: minimal surface area, exhaustive tests, fuzz and invariant testing, formal property statements, third-party audit before deployment, and a real incident response plan if something goes wrong post-launch.
Around the contracts, we build the off-chain pieces: indexers (subgraphs or custom), event-driven backends, wallet-integrated frontends, and the kind of operational tooling that lets a small team safely operate a live protocol.
When you need this
Hire us for blockchain work if you are building a DeFi protocol (DEX, lending market, perps, yield strategies), an NFT or token launch with non-trivial mechanics, a DAO with custom governance, or any system where on-chain state is the source of truth and off-chain code is a thin client. We are especially useful when the team has product clarity but no in-house Solidity capability.
We are not the right team for memecoin launches, rug-style tokenomics, unregistered securities, or projects that ask us to deploy unaudited code holding real user funds.
Our approach
We start every engagement with a written threat model: what the contract holds, who can call what, what the worst-case loss looks like, and which invariants must hold across every state transition. From there we write the contracts test-first in Foundry, with fuzz tests for numerical logic and invariant tests for protocol-level properties. We deploy to a public testnet first, run integration tests against real RPC, and only then move toward a mainnet deploy with a third-party audit in between.
We strongly prefer minimal, immutable contracts where it is feasible, and transparent, time-locked upgrade patterns where it is not. We do not deploy unverified contracts. We do not use admin keys without a multisig and a timelock.
Tech stack we use
Contracts: Solidity 0.8.x with via-IR, OpenZeppelin libraries, Solady where gas matters, custom errors and named returns throughout.
Tooling: Foundry (forge, cast, anvil) as primary, Hardhat where the project demands TypeScript scripting; Slither and Mythril for static analysis; Echidna for property-based fuzzing.
Chains: Ethereum mainnet, Arbitrum One, Optimism, Base, Polygon when warranted; testnets on Sepolia and the respective L2 testnets.
Frontend & indexing: ethers.js v6, viem, wagmi, RainbowKit; The Graph subgraphs or custom Ponder indexers backed by Postgres.
Reference designs: Uniswap V3-style concentrated liquidity, AAVE-style lending markets, Compound-style governor and timelock, ERC-721A and ERC-1155 for NFT mints, OpenZeppelin Governor with a multisig+timelock executor.
Typical engagement
A protocol engagement typically runs ten to twenty weeks before mainnet. The first two weeks produce a threat model, contract sketches, and a Foundry project with the core invariants written as failing tests. The middle weeks implement the protocol against those tests. The final stretch is testnet deployment, audit coordination, audit-fix iteration, mainnet deployment, and monitoring setup. We typically work alongside an external audit firm we trust (Spearbit, Trail of Bits, OpenZeppelin, Code4rena) rather than self-certifying.
Examples of work
Sample engagement shapes include a Uniswap V3-style DEX with custom hooks for a niche asset class, a yield-farming vault with strategy adapters over AAVE and a major LST protocol, an NFT mint with anti-bot allowlist mechanics and a reveal-after-mint flow, and a DAO governance migration from token-vote to a hybrid model with conviction voting and an OpenZeppelin Governor + timelock.
What we don't do: anonymous launches, projects without a credible legal review, anything that requires us to mislead users about risk, Solana or Move-language work (we know our lane), or maintenance of contracts we did not write and cannot fully reason about.
Last updated: May 24, 2026