Should Arbitrum subsidize continuous security instead of audits?

Arbitrum has done an incredible job funding growth across the ecosystem.

However, there’s a growing gap that’s worth discussing:

  • Most projects receiving funding cannot afford $50k–$175k audits
  • Even when they do, audits don’t protect against post-deployment changes
  • Meanwhile, exploits continue to drain millions from ecosystems annually (especially with the new LLMs).

This creates a structural issue:

The majority of projects are either under-secured… or operating with a false sense of security.

A question for delegates and builders:

Would it make sense for Arbitrum to explore a model where:

  • Projects get access to continuous security tooling?

  • Coverage persists beyond deployment

  • Security becomes part of the ecosystem infrastructure (not a one-time event)

This could:

  • Reduce ecosystem risk

  • Increase builder confidence

  • Protect DAO-funded capital

Would love feedback here, especially from delegates and teams who’ve gone through the audit process.