Find the storage bottlenecks before your users do.

The exact cost category this pitch describes, already caught, on real Monad Testnet transactions.

Both contracts below are deployed and source-verified on Monad Testnet (chain 10143). The numbers underneath aren't projected — they're read directly off debug_traceBlockByNumber / prestateTracer diffs from transactions ParaCheck fired itself.

Analyze any contract — terminal, browser, or CI pipeline.

Everything above runs on the same static + dynamic analyzers, exposed three more ways. No separate product, no separate report format.

Real capital and real transaction volume, committing to a brand-new execution model right now.

Monad's own published numbers, not projections — in barely seven months since its November 24, 2025 mainnet launch.

Figures as of the June 30, 2026 snapshot published by Monad.

This isn't ParaCheck's claim. It's the repeated finding of peer-reviewed research.

A large-scale empirical study of more than 160,000 real deployed smart contracts found 52.75% contain at least one gas-inefficient pattern (Journal of Computer Science and Technology). A separate study of 143 real-world Ethereum contracts found 56% included gas-wasteful patterns, with optimized versions cutting deployment cost by an average of over 13%, up to 64% in the best case (International Journal of Grid and Distributed Computing).

One academic case study applying an optimization pass across a real dataset of contract executions cut total gas usage by 55.4% — a documented $109.9 million in real-world savings, from that dataset alone.

The pattern holds across all of it: more than half of deployed contracts carry avoidable inefficiency, and when tooling exists to catch it, the savings are large and provable — not theoretical.

The same sloppy contract costs nothing on Ethereum and something real on Monad.

On Ethereum, fees are charged on gas used — overestimating your gas limit costs nothing. Category Labs' own engineering blog states plainly that on Monad, fees are charged on the declared gas limit, not actual consumption — a deliberate choice to block denial-of-service and discourage optimistic-MEV extraction.

Monad's own team cites real Ethereum transactions declaring a 5,000,000 gas limit for a transfer that used 21,000 — over 200x. "Effectively harmless" there. On Monad, that exact sloppiness has a direct price tag, every single time.

Parallel-execution conflict cost is a new category, layered on top, and it's currently invisible.

Everything above is the general gas-waste problem — already large. Monad adds an entirely new one: naive storage layout forcing otherwise-parallel transactions into serial re-execution, quietly eating the exact throughput advantage the chain is built to deliver.

No independent, third-party benchmark of what this specific pattern costs Monad users has been published anywhere, as of this writing. That's not a weak point in the argument — it's the opening. ParaCheck is built to be the first tool that makes this cost visible and measurable, the way Slither and Mythril did for general gas waste on Ethereum, years before running a linter before deployment became standard practice.

An illustrative model, deliberately labeled as one — not an invented number.

Apply the same order-of-magnitude prevalence rate that peer-reviewed research repeatedly found on Ethereum — roughly half of contracts carrying at least one avoidable inefficiency — to Monad's own cited activity: $17.8B+ in cumulative DEX volume, $1B+ in TVL, under a fee mechanism that punishes inefficiency more directly than Ethereum's does. A meaningful share of the value moving through Monad today is plausibly sitting on avoidable inefficiency.

This is presented explicitly as an extrapolation from published, cited prevalence data applied to Monad's own published activity — not an audited, Monad-specific dollar figure, because that number doesn't exist yet for the parallel-conflict category specifically. That absence is precisely the gap this tool exists to close.

A rare window that closes the longer it stays open.

The chain is scaling fast enough that the cost of not fixing this compounds weekly — more TVL and more volume locks in around contracts written before this class of problem was understood. The developer base is large, concentrated, and reachable right now, through Monad's own hackathon and grant programs — a rare window where reaching a meaningful share of an entire chain's active builders is genuinely possible, not a multi-year sales motion.

General gas-waste tooling is mature — Slither, Mythril, academic tools like PeCatch. The parallel-execution-conflict category, specific to Monad and the small number of chains sharing its execution model, has zero published tooling as of this writing. First-mover position in a category under two years old, on a chain growing this fast, is a genuinely rare combination.