Andrew Isaacs, COO of Neyro, makes a straightforward case: a single auditor examining a smart contract will miss things that a second or third auditor might catch. Different firms use different tools, methodologies, and expertise. One audit is not enough.
But the practice of hiring multiple auditors remains rare in crypto, and Isaacs acknowledges why. Cost compounds fast. Timeline friction increases. Managing five different audit reports, each with its own findings and severity ratings, demands more project management overhead than most teams want to absorb.
The tension Isaacs identifies is real. Blockchain immutability means code bugs don't get patched quietly after launch. They exist forever and can drain funds in minutes. That stakes calculation differs sharply from traditional software, where a vulnerability discovered post-deploy triggers an update cycle and a PR apology. In crypto, the code audit is the last hard defense.
Yet most projects still pick one firm, get one report, and call it done. Isaacs frames multiple audits not as luxury but as a reflection of what the stakes actually are. The gap between that logic and current practice suggests either that projects discount tail risk more than they should, or that the friction cost of coordination still outweighs perceived benefit in their calculus.
The broader pattern Isaacs highlights points to a maturity question for the industry. Mature fields with high consequences—aviation, pharmaceuticals—do not rely on a single reviewer. Crypto projects handling millions in user assets do so routinely. Whether that gap closes depends on whether the cost of multiple audits falls, whether audit tools become more standardized, or whether a high-profile breach tied to a missed single-audit vulnerability finally forces the conversation.