Web3 engineering
Pharos Production builds on-chain products for product teams and enterprises, from protocol design through deployment.
Bring a new protocol or an existing product that needs contract engineering and supporting infrastructure. The agreed handover includes code, reproducible tests, architecture decisions and an operating runbook. We define scope and release checks before implementation.
5.0/5 · 108 reviews
4.9/5 · 147 reviews
5.0/5 · 27 reviews
282 published client reviews across 3 platforms. Counts are summed; reviewers may appear in more than one source.
Profiles checked . Glassdoor: 46 employee reviews, 5.0/5, reported separately.
A shared ledger makes sense when independent parties need to verify the same transactions without relying on one operator. If one organization controls all records and approvals, a conventional database may deliver the same result with less operational work.
We connect on-chain rules to account access, payments, reporting and administrative tools. Discovery establishes which records need public verification, which data must stay off-chain and who can authorize changes.
The sources below cover adoption and regulation. They provide context for discovery; the choice of technology still depends on your transaction flows.
Our scope can cover protocol components, integrations, DeFi flows and user-facing applications. We agree on the contract, backend and interface responsibilities before estimating the work.
We build chain-level components, token rules and application backends around your transaction requirements. The specification records the consensus and deployment choices, the reasons for them and who will operate the system.
Connect your product to the wider blockchain ecosystem through RPC access, event indexing and transaction tracking. To integrate blockchain into an existing application, we define when transactions are final, how retries work and what happens if a provider or bridge goes offline.
We build lending flows, exchanges and liquidity mechanisms, then test how their economic rules behave under stress. The threat model covers faulty oracle prices, liquidations and privileged actions alongside code defects.
As a web3 development company, we add token-gated access, identity and governance to existing products. Signing requests explain what users are approving and what it costs. Failed or pending transactions have a defined recovery path.
Our dapp development work connects the interface to signing flows, indexed data and backend services. Each custom blockchain app is tested for rejected signatures, chain changes and delayed confirmations. We check how dapps recover from those interruptions as well as how they work when transactions succeed.
We combine implementation with risk review: define invariants, test permitted operations, inspect findings and verify fixes before release. Qualified counsel determines legal classification and licensing requirements; technical checks do not replace that advice.
We implement token standards, access control and protocol modules in Solidity, Vyper or Rust as the chain requires. For a smart contract, release checks cover authorization, edge cases and unexpected inputs. Reproducible tests accompany the release.
Who can change the rules after launch? Building secure blockchain systems starts with that question. We document administrator powers and emergency actions, then define module boundaries and trusted dependencies before implementation.
Automated analysis covers repeatable checks; manual inspection examines how the pieces interact. Findings include reproduction steps and remediation guidance, with severity tied to the potential impact. A follow-up review checks the fixes. Independent external review is planned separately when required.
Immutable and upgradeable designs need different release plans. Proxy-based systems require storage compatibility tests and a documented approval procedure. We rehearse the migration and the response to unexpected behavior in the new implementation.
Custody choices affect the entire product: signing, recovery, support and transaction approval. We agree on that model before connecting balances, trading flows or token issuance.
A wallet interface should show the destination, selected network and expected fee before users sign. We build the mobile or web experience around your custody model, including seed handling and recovery where applicable. Institutional flows can add approval controls and SDK integrations.
Build exchange components around the required operating model: matching, liquidity aggregation, account controls and monitoring.
KYC/AML provider connections and fiat rails are scoped with their dependencies and failure handling. Legal classification and licensing decisions remain with qualified counsel.
A no-code platform can be useful for validating a standard flow. A bespoke build is worth considering when the product depends on unusual transaction rules, detailed permissions or operating controls that a template cannot express.
Read the service terms as closely as the feature list. Ask who owns the code and who can upgrade it. If support for a chain ends, can you migrate the product and its data? Permissions and dependencies need review whichever route you choose.
Swipe or scroll horizontally to compare.
| Criterion | Bespoke implementation | No-code option |
|---|---|---|
| Business rules | Designed around an agreed specification and explicit invariants. | Constrained by the template and available extension points. |
| Review | Testing and audit scope can follow the product-specific threat model. | Review must cover the template, configuration and external dependencies. |
| Operations | Monitoring and incident procedures can match your operating model. | Support and recovery depend on the vendor agreement. |
| Ownership | Repository access and handover are agreed in the engagement scope. | Check export rights, hosting dependencies and migration options. |
Pharos Production is a software engineering firm serving product teams worldwide. Review our working languages, network experience and release deliverables below. We agree scope boundaries before preparing a proposal.
Our headquarters is in Las Vegas, Nevada, with an engineering office in Kyiv, Ukraine. Contact the team to agree working hours and technical ownership. Contact details
Transaction updates, reputation data and compliance review place different demands on a system. The projects below show how we connected on-chain features to those wider operating requirements.
A multi-chain product for storing, sending and managing assets. Its event-driven backend provides transaction updates and connects to decentralized applications. The documented stack includes AWS, Kubernetes, Kafka, Flink, Cassandra, Pinot and Redis.
A cross-chain reputation platform that processes on-chain activity into soulbound NFT-based scores. Web, browser and Telegram interfaces expose that data to users and builders, with APIs for reputation checks.
The application combines provider checks and AI-assisted document review with configurable risk scoring for exchanges. Human approval and recurring asset oversight keep review evidence connected to listing decisions.
A crypto prediction game combining price-based rounds with on-chain transparency. The build uses AWS, Kubernetes, Kafka and Flink to support the event flow around trading data and game interactions.
Founder and CTO Pharos Production
13 years in architecture of great software solutions tailored to customer needs for startups and enterprises
23 years of practical enterprise customized software production experience
Lecturer at the National Kyiv Polytechnic University
Doctor of Philosophy in Artificial Intelligence
Master's degree in Computer Science, completed with excellence
Master's degree in Electronics and precision mechanics engineering
Agree on scope and acceptance criteria before implementation. Review working increments, release readiness and support responsibilities at each delivery gate.
Confirm requirements, technical dependencies and the estimate.
Review working increments against agreed acceptance criteria.
Check deployment, monitoring, documentation and release ownership.
Agree on maintenance coverage and responsibility after handover.
See how completed products handle reputation data, listing decisions and transaction tracking. Each case explains the delivered capabilities and operating context.
Listing reviewers can keep provider evidence, risk decisions and human approval in one workflow. Review screens connect supporting documents to the decision record.
Users can check reputation data through web, browser and Telegram interfaces. Builders can connect reputation checks to their own products through APIs.
Players can follow price-based rounds and their on-chain outcomes. The event-processing components connect trading data to game interactions.
An operator can track cross-chain balances and transaction states through one backend. Event processing keeps status updates connected to the user interfaces.
Our Audit-First Pipeline defines what must be reviewed before a release. Each stage produces evidence for the next decision, from the initial specification to mainnet deployment.
Our blockchain consulting services translate business goals into a written chain recommendation. We establish who must verify each operation and what a confirmed transaction can cost. The recommendation compares deployment options and defines the criteria for moving into design.
An oracle can return a bad price even when the calling code works as written. We document assumptions of that kind alongside privileged roles and dependencies. The resulting threat model covers implementation attacks and economic abuse, with an invariant list for testing and review.
Foundry tests and fuzzing run alongside Slither and Mythril analysis and manual code review. We track findings through remediation and prepare a fixed code snapshot, specification and test evidence for external auditors.
We rehearse deployment and configure approval controls, monitoring and emergency actions. The handover includes a runbook and named responsibilities. Upgrades and new integrations trigger a fresh review of the affected risks.
Each comparison explains a change to review with your team: the starting problem, an implementation option and the checks needed for acceptance. Measured effects depend on the original system and test conditions.
Before: defects are found late during external review.
After: add static analysis and Foundry fuzzing to the pre-audit workflow.
Check: reproduce findings, track remediation and review the fixes before submission.
Before: frequent lending operations incur mainnet transaction costs.
After: review storage layout and calldata, then assess an L2 path.
Check: compare the same operations and fee conditions, and rehearse the migration before accepting the change.
Before: each additional chain requires a separate backend integration.
After: use a shared adapter for RPC calls and transaction signing.
Check: test fee estimation, nonce handling and chain-specific failures behind the same interfaces.
A shared ledger brings coordination and operating costs. The deciding question is whether independent verification is worth that overhead for your product. RPC access, indexing and monitoring remain recurring expenses even when transaction fees are low.
Consider an on-chain design when independent parties need a verifiable transaction history, users must control assets directly or contractual rules must execute without a single operator. Identify who verifies the records and what changes if the operator disappears.
Choose a database when a single organization controls all writes, records must remain private or deletion is a core requirement. A public ledger does not make incorrect input true, and signing friction can prevent customers from completing an otherwise simple flow.
A supply chain is a useful example of the trust question. A manufacturer, carrier and buyer may need to verify the same handover events while keeping commercial documents private. A shared ledger can record proofs and agreed approvals, with source documents stored off-chain.
A signed handover entry can record a shipment identifier, recipient and document hash. It establishes who signed the record; checking whether the physical delivery happened still requires source evidence and dispute procedures. If everyone already accepts one system owner, compare the design with a conventional shared service.
Ask a vendor to walk through a compromised administrator key or an unreliable oracle. Which controls limit the damage? Who makes the release decision? Then examine evidence from comparable work, including review findings and the handover artifacts. The contract should identify remediation responsibilities and code ownership.
Our evaluation guide brings those questions into a checklist for security, chain experience and operating support.
Read the evaluation guide →When reviewing top-rated blockchain development providers, read the underlying client feedback and its project context. Look for who managed delivery, how scope changes were handled and whether the team remained involved after launch. Ratings are more useful when the described engagement resembles yours.
Company rating: 4.9/5 on GoodFirms · 147 reviews
Pharos Production Inc. successfully launched a secure, stable blockchain solution that aligned with the client's requirements. The team achieved all milestones on time and maintained regular communication to ensure both sides stayed in sync. Their extensive technical expertise was truly remarkable.
Technology platforms and company references shown for identification. A logo does not establish a commercial partnership or endorsement.
16 references
Consensys
Gate.io
Coinbase
Ludo
Core Scientific
Debut Infotech
Axoni
Alchemy
StarkWare
MARA Holdings
MicroStrategy
Nubank
OKX
Uniswap
Riot
LeewayHertz
Selected badges from Clutch, GoodFirms and The Manifest. Open the issuer profiles to review categories and dates.
Choose your project scope
Choose a starting point based on what you need to validate. A prototype tests a technical assumption. An MVP delivers the core user journey, while a larger rollout adds operating controls and integrations across the business.
Test a technical assumption with a working prototype and a recommendation to continue or change course. Define the question in advance, such as whether a signing flow is usable or a transaction path meets its cost target.
Deliver the core user journey with the backend and integrations needed by initial users. The launch plan defines what is ready for production, what is being monitored and who handles support.
Bring architecture, DevOps, QA and security into one delivery plan. Alongside customer-facing features, the scope covers access controls, integration responsibilities, recovery procedures and migration.
Prices and timelines depend on scope, complexity and external review. The proposal lists implementation, testing, deployment and support separately. External review fees and remediation are included only when explicitly scoped. These are planning ranges, not fixed quotes; technical delivery does not replace legal advice or guarantee the absence of vulnerabilities.
Interaction models
Choose how much delivery responsibility to keep in-house. Add an individual engineer, hire a dedicated team or delegate a defined scope from specification to handover.
Fill a specific engineering gap while your technical lead retains day-to-day ownership. Agree on the work queue and review expectations before granting repository access.
Build a team of blockchain developers around a continuing roadmap. Your product owner sets priorities. Demos and documented decisions keep the squad aligned as requirements evolve, with releases scheduled around agreed acceptance gates.
As a blockchain development agency, Pharos manages an agreed scope from specification through handover. We set deliverables, acceptance tests and escalation points before work starts, including a procedure for changes that emerge during the build.
Technologies, tools and frameworks we use
We compare various blockchain technologies against your fee budget, finality requirements and available tools. The choice also depends on which networks your users and counterparties already use.
Solidity and Rust are languages. Our range of blockchain frameworks and testing tools includes compilers, test runners and static analyzers. For high-performance blockchain infrastructure, we measure the path from transaction submission to confirmed state, including RPC access and indexing.
Compare public networks with a privately operated ledger when access and operating ownership differ. A permissioned blockchain can restrict participation, but still needs clear rules for membership, upgrades and dispute handling. Record these decisions before choosing the technology.
Managed infrastructure can reduce node administration, with trade-offs in provider dependency and control. Check supported chains, data access and recovery options, then define who monitors RPC availability and how the application reacts to an outage.
Lifecycle checks: EOS is now Vaulta. Fantom Opera remains a legacy reference; confirm its operating horizon before extending a deployment. Amazon QLDB is shut down and GoQuorum is archived, so neither is offered here for new builds.
Explore language and runtime expertise: Solidity, Rust and Node.js.
The blockchain development team tracks milestones through working demos and documented decisions. Each milestone records what has been accepted and what remains open. Discovery refines the estimate as security requirements and external dependencies become clear.
We match expertise in blockchain technology to the roles your backlog requires. Relevant implementation and review experience informs team selection. Before work starts, we agree on technical ownership, access and communication.
Demonstrate working flows at each milestone. Review the interface and backend together, including transaction failure states and administrative operations, so acceptance does not depend on a successful demo alone.
Complete the release checklist, review outstanding findings and rehearse the deployment. Confirm monitoring coverage and the incident runbook before the launch owner signs off on production access.
Agree on maintenance coverage, escalation channels and response expectations. Track dependency changes and operational findings, with review gates for upgrades that alter authorization, economics or chain behavior.
Type to filter questions and answers. Use Topic to narrow the list.
Showing all 8
No matches
Try a different keyword, change the topic or clear filters
The scope depends on code size, complexity, dependencies and the depth of review. Budget for remediation and review of the fixes as well as the initial assessment.
We prepare a code snapshot, specification and test evidence so external reviewers can quote against a defined scope.
Our work spans Ethereum and EVM networks, alongside Solana and TON. The recommendation follows your fee budget and user access requirements.
Multi-chain delivery also needs explicit finality and indexing rules, with tests for behavior that differs between chains.
The estimate separates discovery, implementation and security review from deployment. Protocol complexity, oracle dependencies and external audit availability can change the critical path.
We refine the schedule after the specification and threat model are agreed.
We build token logic and deployment tools, including the interfaces that users and operators need. Identity or transaction-screening providers can be connected as part of that scope.
Qualified legal counsel determines classification and licensing requirements before the affected launch scope is approved.
Start with a measured transaction profile. We examine storage writes, calldata and repeated operations, then compare batching or L2 execution where appropriate. Changes need regression tests so a lower fee does not hide a change in behavior.
Yes. We review an agreed code version using automated analysis, fuzz testing and manual inspection.
The written report describes findings and their severity, with reproduction and remediation guidance. Fixes need a follow-up check; external assurance is scoped separately.
We recommend another approach when a database would meet the verification requirements with less complexity. We also stop launch scoping when token classification lacks legal review or the intended operating model has unresolved compliance responsibilities.
For EVM work we use Solidity or Vyper with Foundry, Hardhat and OpenZeppelin components. Slither and Mythril support static analysis.
Solana work uses Rust and Anchor. Tool selection follows the target chain and the properties the tests need to verify.
Implementation tooling, security guidance and protocol specifications for the engineering work described above.
Published record
Technical articles, comparison guides and methodology deep-dives we write from our own delivery experience.
Explore a contract-focused estimate using code size, chain choice and upgrade patterns. This model covers engineering and assurance assumptions; the three product packages above cover a broader delivery scope.
Last reviewed . Pharos planning assumptions. The selected rate is a budget scenario, not an auditor classification or price offer.
Send your brief for an initial scope review. We usually reply within 24 hours, then clarify the requirements and prepare a proposal. The start date follows agreement on scope, responsibilities and terms.
Send the goals, existing code and constraints. We usually reply within 24 hours to arrange a scoping conversation.
Usually within 24 hoursIf confidential material is needed, agree an NDA before sharing it.
Before confidential disclosureReview a proposal covering scope, deliverables, team, schedule and budget. Its preparation depends on the information available.
After scopingResolve questions and confirm acceptance criteria, ownership and the procedure for scope changes.
By agreementAgree the contract and a start date based on scope, access and team availability.
After agreementThanks for the request!
We typically reply within 24 hours
