If you’re a Web3 founder, you’ve probably heard terms like testing, fuzzing, audits — and now formal analysis.
At first glance, they can sound like the same thing.
They’re not.
Here’s the simplest way to think about it:
Fuzzing tries to find failures.
Formal analysis proves failures cannot exist.
Fuzzing is powerful. It throws thousands of random inputs at a smart contract to see if something breaks.
But it’s still exploration. You only know what was tested, never what was missed.
Formal analysis works differently.
Instead of trying inputs, it checks the rules of the system and proves that certain dangerous behaviors are impossible, under all possible executions, including ones no test or fuzzer would ever think to try.
A useful analogy:
Fuzzing is like sending people to explore a building in the dark, hoping someone finds a hidden trapdoor.
Formal analysis is checking the blueprints and proving that no trapdoor can exist anywhere, even in rooms no one has entered.
This matters because most major Web3 failures didn’t come from obvious bugs.
They came from logic behaving correctly according to the code, but incorrectly according to the business intent.
Audits remain essential.
Fuzzing is extremely valuable.
Formal analysis is the layer that provides guarantees, not probabilities.
If your protocol:
- Holds significant value
- Is immutable
- Has complex logic (DeFi, bridges, governance, vaults)
…then relying only on testing and audits is like driving fast without a seatbelt.
Audits tell you what might be wrong.
Formal analysis tells you what cannot go wrong.In Web3, trust isn’t promised.
It’s proven.
