FunC Smart Contracts for TON: Development, Audit, Deployment

We design and develop full-cycle blockchain solutions: from smart contract architecture to launching DeFi protocols, NFT marketplaces and crypto exchanges. Security audits, tokenomics, integration with existing infrastructure.
Showing 1 of 1All 1305 services
FunC Smart Contracts for TON: Development, Audit, Deployment
Complex
~3-5 days
Frequently Asked Questions

Blockchain Development Services

Blockchain Development Stages

Latest works

  • image_website-b2b-advance_0.webp
    B2B ADVANCE company website development
    1347
  • image_web-applications_feedme_466_0.webp
    Development of a web application for FEEDME
    1247
  • image_websites_belfingroup_462_0.webp
    Website development for BELFINGROUP
    948
  • image_ecommerce_furnoro_435_0.webp
    Development of an online store for the company FURNORO
    1183
  • image_logo-advance_0.webp
    B2B Advance company logo design
    642
  • image_crm_enviok_479_0.webp
    Development of a web application for Enviok
    921

FunC Smart Contracts for TON: From Idea to Mainnet

You've decided to build on TON. You've written Solidity before. Now you're staring at FunC, wondering why Cell exists and how to handle bounce messages. The learning curve is steep: a stack-based TVM, a cell-based storage model, and asynchronous message passing. Over 5 years we've implemented more than 120 TON contracts and know how to navigate this territory without losing funds. Our contracts average 25% lower gas consumption than reference implementations — the result of years of optimization.

According to the TON Foundation documentation, Jetton is the token standard in the TON network.

How asynchronous messages work in TON?

In Solidity contractA.functionB() is a synchronous call within one transaction. In TON everything is different: contracts communicate via messages, each processed in its own transaction. If contract A sends a message to contract B, which sends a message to contract C — that's three separate transactions in three separate blocks. This breaks familiar patterns and requires an explicit state machine in storage.

TVM and Cell — not what you're used to

In EVM a contract is bytecode, storage is key-value with 32-byte slots. In TVM the contract is stored as a tree of Cell objects. Each Cell holds up to 1023 bits of data and up to 4 references to other Cells. The contract's storage is a Cell tree that is loaded entirely on each call and saved entirely back. This has concrete consequences: no slot collisions as in EVM proxy, but reading deeply nested structures requires sequential parsing via begin_parse() / load_uint() / load_ref(). Forget the field order during deserialization — you get corrupt data without a compiler error.

Why handling bounce messages is critical for security?

A bounce message is the equivalent of a refund when an error occurs. If the recipient contract reverts, TON automatically sends a bounce message to the sender with the remaining funds. If the sender doesn't handle the bounce — funds hang forever. We've seen projects lose tens of thousands of TON due to a missing bounce handler. During design we always embed a state machine and timeout mechanisms.

Gas model in TON

TON doesn't have a per-transaction gas limit like EVM. Instead, there are storage fees — the contract pays for storing its state every second. A contract with large storage and zero balance will eventually be frozen. This must be considered in design: data-storing contracts (e.g., individual jetton wallets) need a replenishment mechanism or a minimum balance. Storage optimization is one of our core competencies.

How to avoid losing funds on bounce: step-by-step

  1. Implement a separate bounce function by op-code.
  2. Explicitly document all bounce handlers in the code.
  3. Use a state machine in storage with statuses: pending, processing, completed, failed.
  4. Add a timeout: if an operation stays in processing for more than N seconds — automatic rollback.
  5. Provide a separate handler for each bounce.

Skipping bounce handling is a typical beginner mistake. A contract sends TON to another contract, that contract reverts, the coins return as a bounce message. If the sender doesn't handle the bounce — the coins vanish.

TON vs EVM for development tasks

Feature TON / FunC EVM / Solidity
Execution model Asynchronous messages Synchronous calls
Data storage Cell trees Key-value slots
Language FunC / Tact Solidity / Vyper
Token standards TEP-74 (Jetton), TEP-62 (NFT) ERC-20, ERC-721, ERC-1155
Atomic operations No (multiple transactions) Yes (single transaction)
Storage fees Yes (periodic) No
Transaction speed <5 seconds 12-60 seconds (Ethereum)
Audit tools Limited set Slither, Mythril, Echidna
TPS capacity 1,000,000 TPS (sharded) 15-30 TPS (Ethereum)

The table shows TON is not "better" or "worse" — it's different. For tasks with high TPS and cheap transactions (payments, gamefi, miniapps in Telegram) the TON architecture is optimal. TON is 10× faster than Ethereum in throughput.

How we write contracts on FunC

Development stack

Blueprint — the standard tool for developing and testing TON contracts. It provides an environment for local TVM execution, TypeScript tests, and customizable deployment scripts. We use toncli for quick prototyping. For new projects we choose Blueprint. Tact — a high-level language over FunC, lowering the entry barrier; we use it for projects where speed matters more than maximum bytecode control. TEP-74 — the Jetton standard that we base tokens on.

Official standards: TEP-74 (Jetton), TEP-62 (NFT), TEP-64 (metadata). There's no OpenZeppelin equivalent in TON — reference implementations from TON Foundation exist, and we use them as a base.

A typical Jetton mistake

Jetton architecture is sharded: each user has their own wallet contract. A transfer is two messages from the sender's wallet to the recipient's wallet. The standard mistake: the recipient contract doesn't implement a transfer_notification handler — the jettons arrive but the contract state doesn't change.

Development process for a TON contract

  • Design message flow (3-5 days). Before writing any code — a complete message diagram: op-codes, direction, bounce scenarios.
  • Develop on FunC + TypeScript tests (1-3 weeks). Blueprint tests cover the happy path and all bounce scenarios (80%+ coverage).
  • Review storage layout. We verify serialization/deserialization order of Cells, correctness of bounce.
  • Deploy to testnet → mainnet. Code verification via TON Verifier.

Complexity and timeline estimates

Project type Timeline Comment Estimated cost
Basic Jetton (TEP-74) 3-5 days Standard contract with minimal logic $5,000 - $7,000
NFT collection with custom logic 1-2 weeks TEP-62, metadata, royalties $8,000 - $15,000
DeFi protocol with multiple contracts from 4 weeks State machine, integration, audit $20,000 - $50,000
Integration with Telegram Mini App +3-7 days Via tonconnect $3,000 - $5,000

What's included in the work

  • Source code in FunC/Blueprint with comments
  • TypeScript tests (80%+ coverage)
  • Documentation on message flow and handlers
  • Deployment instructions (testnet + mainnet)
  • Support during deployment and initial launch
  • Contract audit (optional)

Contact us to evaluate your project. Get a free consultation on your contract architecture. Order development today — we'll prepare a proposal tailored to your architecture. Guaranteed quality and proven experience in 120+ projects.

Smart Contract Development

We faced a situation: a contract was deployed, two weeks later a message arrives—the pool drained for $800k. Looked at the transaction in Tenderly: attacker called deposit(), inside an ERC-777 callback re-called withdraw()—balance only updated after the second exit. Classic reentrancy, but not via ETH transfer—through an ERC-777 hook. ReentrancyGuard was only on withdraw().

Such cases are not rare. A smart contract is financial logic with no possibility to patch it overnight. Our team develops turnkey contracts, embedding protection against reentrancy, MEV, and gas attacks from the early stages.

How We Develop Smart Contracts Turnkey

We start with business logic audit and stack selection. Solidity 0.8.x is the standard for EVM-compatible chains: Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism, Polygon, BSC, Avalanche C-Chain. For Solana, we use Rust and Anchor: the account and program model requires explicit declaration of all resources. For projects requiring formal verification, Move (Aptos, Sui) fits—linear types eliminate resource copying at the compiler level. Vyper is chosen for contracts where audit simplicity is critical (Curve Finance).

Language Execution Model Typical Domain Risks
Solidity 0.8.x EVM, sequential DeFi, NFT, tokens Reentrancy, overflow (unchecked)
Rust (Anchor) Solana, parallel High-throughput DEX, games Incorrect account declaration
Move Aptos/Sui, resource Large protocols Ecosystem complexity
Vyper EVM, limited syntax Critical contracts (Curve) Compiler stability dependency

Gas optimization is not premature optimization—it is an architectural decision. On Ethereum mainnet, deploying a poorly designed contract can cost a significant amount of ETH due to suboptimal storage layout. Repacking a Proposal structure from 7 slots to 4 saved thousands of gas per vote—substantial savings when scaled across thousands of votes per day.

Typical gas mistakes: passing arrays via memory instead of calldata in external functions (2–3x more expensive); using require with long strings instead of custom errors like error InsufficientBalance(...). Custom errors are cheaper on revert and pass structured data to the frontend.

Why Smart Contract Audit Is Critical for Security

Audit is not a one-time check—it is a built-in development stage. We use three levels:

  1. Static analysisSlither (30 seconds in CI) detects reentrancy, uninitialized variables, dangerous delegatecall.
  2. Fuzzing and invariant testsFoundry with --fuzz-runs 50000 finds edge cases missed by hundreds of unit tests. Real case: an AMM contract with custom math passed 150 Hardhat tests; Foundry found an integer division truncation that allowed a dust attack to accumulate dust on the contract. Echidna checks invariants ("sum of all balances ≤ totalSupply").
  3. Manual code review—our engineers with 10+ years in blockchain identify logic errors that tools miss. For protocols with TVL > $1M, external audit from Trail of Bits, Consensys Diligence, or OpenZeppelin is mandatory. Timeline: 2–4 weeks.

Any upgradeable protocol must have a timelock. TimelockController from OpenZeppelin: operation proposed → wait minimum delay (48–72 hours) → executed. Without timelock, one compromised deployer wallet means losing the entire pool.

What Upgrade Patterns Do We Choose?

Pattern Mechanism Risk When to Use Our Experience
Transparent Proxy (OZ) admin vs user separation Storage collision, centralization Standard projects 15+ implementations
UUPS Upgrade logic in implementation Forget _authorizeUpgrade → contract permanently broken Gas-optimized projects 7 projects
Diamond (EIP-2535) Multiple facets Audit complexity Large protocols with 10+ contracts 3 deployments
Beacon Proxy One beacon for multiple proxies Beacon = single point of failure Factories of identical contracts 5 factories

Storage collision is the main danger of proxies. Implementation v2 must not add variables before existing ones. OpenZeppelin Upgrades plugin for Hardhat and Foundry checks this automatically, but only when using its API.

How to Protect a Contract from MEV and Front-Running

On Ethereum mainnet, transactions in the mempool are visible to all. MEV bots execute sandwich attacks on DEX, front-run mints and governance. Solution: commit-reveal scheme for auctions, private submission via Flashbots PROTECT RPC. EIP-7702 and PBS (proposer-builder separation) are changing the landscape but not yet widespread.

What Is the Development Process?

  1. Analysis—functional specification, call diagram, edge case analysis. Without this, coding starts in vain.
  2. Development—Solidity/Rust with tests in parallel. Test → code → refactoring. Use Foundry for fuzz and invariant tests.
  3. Internal audit—Slither + Echidna + manual code review. Foundry invariant tests for protocol invariants.
  4. External audit—for projects with real money. Timeline: 2–4 weeks.
  5. Deployment—Foundry scripts or Hardhat Ignition with verification on Etherscan. Gnosis Safe for ownership transfer immediately after deployment.
  6. Monitoring—Tenderly alerts, OpenZeppelin Defender, Forta Network.

What Is Included

  • Architecture documentation and contract specification (NatSpec).
  • Source code with repository and CI (Slither, Foundry, coverage).
  • Deployed contract with verification on blockchain explorer.
  • Audit results (internal and external upon request).
  • Access to monitoring and management (Gnosis Safe).
  • Code warranty: critical bug fixes within one month after deployment.
  • Consultation on web integration (wagmi, RainbowKit).

Estimated Timelines

  • ERC-20 token with basic functions: 1–2 weeks
  • Vesting contract with cliff/linear schedule: 2–3 weeks
  • NFT ERC-721/1155 with marketplace: 4–6 weeks
  • AMM or lending protocol: 2–4 months
  • Multichain protocol with bridge: 4–7 months

Audit adds 3–6 weeks and runs in parallel with final testing where possible. Cost is calculated individually—contact us for a free project evaluation.

Order smart contract development—get consultation on architecture and protection against reentrancy, MEV, and gas attacks. Want to discuss details? Write to us—we will select the optimal stack for your task.