Let me preface this: I’m a Web3 dev. I don’t fear Solidity.
But like any honest builder, I’ll admit this — auditing your own code sucks.

You miss your own blind spots. You get tired. You skip stuff. So I did what any curious developer in 2025 would do:

I asked GPT-4 to audit my smart contract.

Spoiler: it didn’t disappoint.

💥 The Setup
I gave it a pretty straightforward ERC-721 implementation with some edge-case logic for minting rules and royalties. My goal? See what it would catch — and if it could explain vulnerabilities better than the average GitHub reply.

Here’s what GPT-4 flagged:

✅ Missing reentrancyGuard on a custom withdraw function

✅ An unused event that bloated gas slightly

✅ Poor randomness source in a “lucky mint” mechanic

✅ Lack of failsafe if royalty receiver was the zero address

Some of this I knew. Some I definitely missed.

📚 But It Wasn’t Just the Errors…
It was how clearly GPT-4 explained why each thing mattered.
And it went a step further — suggesting best practices that most juniors (and frankly, some seniors) overlook.

I ran a side-by-side test:
GPT-4's audit vs ChatGPT-3.5’s — the difference in depth was very real.

💡 Where WhiteBIT Comes In
Here’s the kicker: I’ve worked with projects getting ready to list on WhiteBIT, and this level of audit hygiene is exactly what makes or breaks the trust in early token launches.

Whether it’s a simple staking contract or a more complex DAO flow, being able to run AI-assisted audits before manual code review helps avoid PR disasters and makes listing smoother.

WhiteBIT, as one of the most structured exchanges for onboarding new assets, cares about smart contract quality. This experience made that make even more sense.

🧠 Should You Trust AI With Your Contracts?
Not blindly. But it’s like having a super-fast, opinionated junior dev who doesn’t sleep and constantly reads all the best security blogs.

Would I use it again? Definitely.
Would I rely on it alone? Never.
But as a first pass — it’s an insanely useful tool in your stack.