# B2 v2.1 Token Transparency Template Framework: B2 TTF version: 2.1 ## Project & Team ### 1. Description of Project Instructions: A narrative description of the purpose of the project is provided. Scoring criteria: 0 — No narrative description is provided or only a URL is provided with no explanation. 5 — A clear narrative is provided that conveys what the project is. Maximum score: 5 **Answer** ### 2. Known Project Team Instructions: For each existing entity: Labs/DevCo (e.g., Founder, CEO, CTO, COO), Foundation (e.g., President, Executive Director, CFO, COO), and DAO / onchain governance leadership (if applicable) list the: (a) full names, (b) official titles, (c) and prior experience of key team members. For any non-existent entity, explicitly mention it does not exist. External links may be included but they will not factor into the score. Scoring criteria: 0 — Fail if any of the following is true for the answer text (ignoring links): (a) For an existing entity, at least one required element (full name, official title, or prior experience) is missing for every listed person; or (b) For an existing entity, no key team member is listed at all; or (c) The roster is provided only via external links (no names/titles/experience in the answer text); or (d) The answer references an entity but does not state whether it exists (and, if it does not, does not state so explicitly). 2 — Pass ONLY if all of the following are true in the answer text: (a) For every existing entity, at least one key team member is listed with full name, official title, and prior experience; and (b) For every non-existent entity, the answer explicitly states it does not exist; and (c) The roster appears in the answer text (not just via links). Maximum score: 2 **Answer** #### Labs / DevCo | Full Name | Official Title | Prior Experience | | --- | --- | --- | | | | | #### Foundation | Full Name | Official Title | Prior Experience | | --- | --- | --- | | | | | #### DAO / Onchain Governance | Full Name | Official Title | Prior Experience | | --- | --- | --- | | | | | ### 3. DAO Structure Instructions: Provide a structured description of the DAO's governance, powers, and economic rights. If a DAO does not exist, state so. Address the lettered items below. Even if there is no DAO, there must be an answer to (d). Scoring criteria: 5 — Complete: Covers all core items {(a), (b), (d), (e), (f)}. Includes (c) if locking/staking exists (acceptable to omit (c) if no locking). Edge condition: If it is stated that there is no DAO and there is an answer for (d) detailing current tokenholder governance rights and economic arrangements (or an explicit statement of "none"), full points are awarded. 1.5 — Partial: Covers 3 of the 5 core items. Edge case: If it is explicitly stated that there is no DAO and the answer does not address (d) at all, half points are awarded. 0 — Insufficient: Covers ≤2 core items, or leaves governance powers / economic arrangements / control surface evolution / dissolution authority indeterminate. Maximum score: 5 **Answer** #### (a) IP ownership & control State what IP the DAO owns or controls (e.g., codebases/repos, trademarks/brands). Note any license if relevant. #### (b) Contract/admin powers List on-chain or administrative authorities and limits: pause/upgrade roles (e.g., multisig pause), governance-executor authorities, and the method of authority for each (e.g., veto, majority, super-majority). #### (c) Locked-token rights (conditional) If locking/staking for additional rights exists, explain the additional rights and what tokenholders can and cannot decide. If no locking mechanism exists, leave absent. #### (d) Current tokenholder governance rights and economic arrangements If any, describe the current governance rights of tokenholders and any presently operative rights or arrangements relating to treasury actions, fee-routing, rewards, buybacks, or other protocol-controlled resources. If none, state that explicitly. #### (e) Control surface reliance If any, briefly describe the anticipated or possible evolution of the protocol's governance/control model. #### (f) Dissolution authority State who can dissolve/wind up the DAO and by what mechanism (e.g., on-chain vote threshold, board resolution of a legal wrapper). ### 4. Primary Foundation Instructions: Do the following for the Primary Foundation, defined below. If the primary foundation does not exist, state that explicitly. Items (a)–(f) apply only if that entity exists; state explicitly that the entity doesn't exist. Definitions: The primary Foundation and DevCo can be explained as those entities which were directly/indirectly involved in the issuance of the native token at launch. If the original foundation/DevCo has been dissolved and in its place a "new foundation/DevCo" was created, then detail the "new foundation/DevCo". Scoring criteria: 2.5 — Either (i) the answer explicitly states no primary Foundation exists, or (ii) the Foundation exists and all six core items (a)–(f) are clearly present in the answer text. 0.5 — The Foundation exists and 3–5 of the six core items are clearly present; existence is not ambiguous. 0 — Silent on whether the Foundation exists, or (if it exists) ≤2 core items are present, or the facts are indeterminate. Maximum score: 2.5 **Answer** #### (a) Entity Type and jurisdiction. #### (b) IP ownership & control What IP the entity owns/controls (repos/code, trademarks/brand; license optional) and an explanation of any subsidiary entities. #### (c) Powers over DAO, treasury, protocol-controlled resources, and token administration If any, describe the current powers over DAO governance, treasury actions, protocol-controlled resources (e.g. retained revenue), token administration, or reward parameters, and the method/threshold for each. #### (d) Powers over DevCo Explain whether the Foundation can exert direct or indirect influence over decision-making of the Developer Company. #### (e) Contract/admin powers Pause/upgrade/governance-executor authorities and the method/threshold for each (e.g., veto/majority/super-majority; "3/5 multisig"). #### (f) Current economic arrangements and distribution policies Describe any current governance-approved, contractual, or programmatic mechanisms, if any, by which protocol-controlled resources, treasury assets, fees, revenue, rewards, or token distributions may be directed to this entity, its equityholders, contributors, or other participants. If no such mechanism currently exists, state that explicitly. Do not discuss hypothetical future dividends, repurchases, or distributions unless formally adopted. ### 5. Primary Developer Company Instructions: Do the following for the Primary Developer Company, defined below. If the primary Developer Company does not exist, state that explicitly. Items (a)–(f) apply only if that entity exists; state explicitly that the entity doesn't exist. Definitions: The primary Foundation and DevCo can be explained as those entities which were directly/indirectly involved in the issuance of the native token at launch. If the original foundation/DevCo has been dissolved and in its place a "new foundation/DevCo" was created, then detail the "new foundation/DevCo". Scoring criteria: 2.5 — Either (i) the answer explicitly states no primary DevCo exists, or (ii) the DevCo exists and all six core items (a)–(f) are clearly present in the answer text. 0.5 — The DevCo exists and 3–5 of the six core items are clearly present; existence is not ambiguous. 0 — Silent on whether the DevCo exists, or (if it exists) ≤2 core items are present, or the facts are indeterminate. Maximum score: 2.5 **Answer** #### (a) Entity Type and jurisdiction. #### (b) IP ownership & control What IP the entity owns/controls (repos/code, trademarks/brand; license optional) and an explanation of any subsidiary entities. #### (c) Powers over DAO, treasury, protocol-controlled resources, and token administration If any, describe the current powers over DAO governance, treasury actions, protocol-controlled resources (e.g. retained revenue), token administration, or reward parameters, and the method/threshold for each. #### (d) Powers over Foundation Explain whether the Developer Company can exert direct or indirect influence over decision-making of the Foundation. #### (e) Contract/admin powers Pause/upgrade/governance-executor authorities and the method/threshold for each (e.g., veto/majority/super-majority; "3/5 multisig"). #### (f) Current economic arrangements and distribution policies Describe any current governance-approved, contractual, or programmatic mechanisms, if any, by which protocol-controlled resources, treasury assets, fees, revenue, rewards, or token distributions may be directed to this entity, its equityholders, contributors, or other participants. If no such mechanism currently exists, state that explicitly. Do not discuss hypothetical future dividends, repurchases, or distributions unless formally adopted. ### 6. Affiliated Protocol Contributor Instructions: Definition (for this section): An Affiliated Protocol Contributor (APC) is a non-issuer company - not the protocol's primary Foundation or DevCo - that materially contributes to the protocol's code, operations, governance, or funding. For example, Blockworks Advisory would be considered an APC of Ethena because it materially contributes to its operations through Ethena's risk council. Provide a structured description per APC. If no APCs exist, state that explicitly. Items below apply per APC; if an item isn't applicable to a given APC, leave it absent and note why briefly. Scoring criteria: 2 — Either (i) the answer explicitly states no APCs exist, or (ii) for every disclosed APC, all four items (a)–(d) are clearly present (or marked "none" / not applicable where warranted). 1.5 — At least one APC is disclosed by identity and role (a), and most APCs have (a)–(d) complete, but one or more items are missing or ambiguous for a minority of APCs, OR existence of APCs is acknowledged but (c) or (d) is omitted for one or more. 0 — APCs exist but none are named, OR the answer is silent on whether APCs exist, OR two or more of (a)–(d) are missing for any named APC, OR compensation/economic arrangements (d) are omitted across the board when APCs clearly receive material compensation. Maximum score: 2 **Answer** #### (a) Identity & role Legal name, entity type, jurisdiction, and role (e.g., core development, security, infrastructure, market making, operations). #### (b) Parameter control & scope If any, what major protocol parameters the APC controls; include the method of authority (e.g., veto, majority, super-majority, "3/5 multisig"). If none, say so. #### (c) Contract/admin powers If any, provide the pause/upgrade powers (e.g., multisig pause), governance-executor authorities and limitations; include the method/threshold for each. If none, say so. #### (d) Compensation and material economic arrangements If any, protocol-generated resources or economic value is dynamically routed to the APC, describe the arrangement. Include the resource sources, routing mechanism, payment frequency, and duration. If no protocol resources or resources-linked economics are routed to the APC, state that explicitly. ## Token Supply & Allocation ### 7. Initial Allocation Scoring criteria: 0 — One or more of items (a)–(f) is missing, ambiguous, or not addressed. 2 — A complete initial allocation schedule is provided and all items (a)–(f) are clearly present in the answer text. Maximum score: 2 **Answer** | Ticker | Date | Allocation Category Name | Recipient Type | Allocation % | Allocation Tokens | TGE Unlock % | TGE Unlock Tokens | Cliff Months | Cliff Unlock % | Linear Vesting Months | Cadence Months | Circulating Treatment | Notes on what each category is used for | If applicable: Contract / Wallet address | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ### 8. Vesting Insider Tokens Instructions: If there are not post-TGE token compensation plans, state explicitly they do not exist. If there are, state each of (A)–(B) below. Scoring criteria: 0 — The answer is silent on whether post-TGE token compensation plans exist, OR such plans exist but either (A) or (B) is missing, incomplete, or ambiguous. For (A), incomplete means the current locked or unvested amount attributable to post-TGE employees is not expressed as a percentage of total supply. For (B), incomplete means any of cliff length, vesting frequency, or total duration is absent. 1 — Either (i) the answer explicitly states no post-TGE token compensation plans exist, or (ii) plans exist and both (A) the current locked or unvested post-TGE employee amount is disclosed as a percentage of total supply AND (B) cliff length + vesting frequency + total duration are clearly disclosed. Maximum score: 1 **Answer** #### (a) Post-TGE employee lock as % of total supply State the current total amount of tokens locked or unvested attributable to post-TGE employees, expressed as a percentage of total supply. #### (b) Typical post-TGE vesting schedule Describe the standard vesting terms used for post-TGE grants, including: cliff length (or "no cliff"), vesting frequency (e.g., monthly/quarterly), and total duration. ### 9. Disclosure of Token Advisory Billings Instructions: Disclose current token-based compensation for external advisors and service providers (e.g., legal, marketing, technical, growth) funded from the on-chain treasury. Do not disclose individual payments to advisors receiving fiat-only compensation. Scoring criteria: 2 — Either (i) the answer explicitly states no token-based advisory compensation exists, or (ii) all four items (a)–(d) are clearly present: existence acknowledged, total aggregate token allocation disclosed, payer entity identified, and a brief description of services provided. 1.5 — Existence (a) is acknowledged and at least two of (b), (c), (d) are present, but one of (b), (c), or (d) is missing or ambiguous. Individual advisor-level detail is not required — aggregate figures suffice. 0 — Silent on whether token-based advisory compensation exists, OR token-based compensation is acknowledged but two or more of (b), (c), (d) are missing, OR the answer only provides fiat payments without addressing token payments. Maximum score: 2 **Answer** #### (a) Existence Whether any such token-based payments or advisory commitments exist (or explicitly state that no token-based compensation for advisory commitments exist). #### (b) Total token allocation The total token allocation across all advisory services. #### (c) Payer entity The payer entity (e.g., Foundation, Labs/DevCo, DAO/treasury). #### (d) Description of advisory/services A brief description of the advisory/services (e.g., "legal and regulatory advisory," "growth and BD support," "security advisory"). ### 10. KOL Marketing Activities Instructions: Disclose ongoing KOL/influencer relationships that partially or fully received tokens for payment. Do not need to disclose KOL/influencers that do not receive tokens for payment. Scoring criteria: 2 — Either (i) the answer explicitly states no KOLs receive tokens for payment, or (ii) all three items (a)–(c) are clearly present: existence confirmed, usernames/handles listed with platforms and activity descriptions, and aggregate token allocation with vesting/lock terms disclosed. 0.5 — Existence (a) is acknowledged and one or two of (b), (c) are partially present but materially incomplete — e.g., usernames listed without platforms or without activity descriptions, or aggregate allocation provided without vesting terms. 0 — Silent on whether KOLs receive tokens, OR KOL token payments are acknowledged but no usernames/handles are provided, OR both (b) and (c) are missing or ambiguous. Maximum score: 2 **Answer** #### (a) Existence & scope State plainly whether KOLs receive tokens for payment, if none say so. #### (b) Usernames & roles List usernames/handles (with platforms) for KOLs that received token-based compensation and describe the nature of their activities. Legal names are not required. #### (c) Token allocation & vesting/locks Provide the aggregate token amount across all such arrangements and summarize vesting, lock, or release terms. ### 11. Labelled Unissued & Operational Token Wallets Instructions: For each wallet that holds Unissued Tokens or is essential to operations (e.g., foundation, operations, treasury, investor reserve), disclose: - (a) A category label explaining the wallet's primary function. - (b) chain the wallet is on. - (c) The unique address of the wallet. - (d) The mechanism of control (e.g., DAO, multisig). - (e) One verification link to a blockchain explorer. Definition: Unissued Supply = tokens authorized by the contract but not yet issued to any party; where they sit (treasury or mint authority) does not change that they are unissued. For instance: if a token has a total supply cap of 1B, and 400M tokens have been issued to investors, the team, and users (whether vested or unlocked), then those 400M count as issued supply. The remaining 600M are authorized but unissued supply, even if they are already minted into a DAO treasury wallet. Scoring criteria: 2 — For every disclosed wallet, all five items (a)–(e) are clearly present: category label, chain, unique address, control mechanism, and a blockchain explorer verification link. The disclosure covers wallets holding unissued tokens AND operational wallets (treasury, foundation, operations, investor reserve as applicable). 0.5 — At least one material wallet is disclosed with a category label and unique address, but exactly one required item from (b)–(e) is missing or ambiguous for one or more disclosed wallets, OR the disclosure covers only one applicable wallet group (unissued-token wallets or operational wallets) while omitting another applicable group. 0 — No wallets are disclosed, OR wallets are listed without addresses, OR two or more of (a)–(e) are missing or ambiguous for any disclosed wallet, OR unissued supply is known to exist but no unissued-supply wallet is disclosed and no treasury wallet is identified as holding unissued supply. Maximum score: 2 **Answer** | Title | Primary Function | Chain | Address | Control Mechanism | Explorer Link | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | | | | | | ## Transactions & Market Structures ### 12. Market Maker Agreements & Deals Instructions: Projects must disclose all material terms of market-making arrangements that affect token liquidity. If the project has no agreements or deals with market makers, state that explicitly; doing so earns full credit. For each market maker, include in a table: - (a) Market maker's name — the market maker's name; - (b) Token allocation or loaned amount — the token allocation or loaned amount as a percentage of total supply; - (c) Duration/term of agreement — the duration/term of the agreement; and, where applicable, - (d) Name of agreement structure — label the financial vehicle being used in the agreement (i.e. loan, option/call, retainer model) without describing trading strategy or expected outcomes. If the project has no agreements or deals with market makers, state that explicitly; doing so earns full credit. If no native tokens were loaned or allocated to market makers, state that explicitly; cash/fiat retainers or fees are not required for this item. Scoring criteria: 2.5 — Either (i) the answer explicitly states there are no market-making agreements (or explicitly states no native tokens were loaned/allocated, with cash-only retainers noted), or (ii) for every named market maker, all four items (a)–(d) are clearly provided: name, token allocation or loaned amount as % of total supply (accept absolute token count if % is computable), duration/term (accept "open-ended," "month-to-month," or "until terminated on X conditions"), and the agreement structure label (loan, option/call, retainer, etc.). 0.5 — Agreements exist and at least one market maker is named, but there are limited gaps: exactly one of (b)–(d) is missing or ambiguous for one or more named market makers, OR aggregate figures are provided across multiple market makers rather than per-MM breakdowns, OR the answer is ambiguous about whether token loans/allocations exist alongside retainers. 0 — Agreements exist but no market maker is named, OR for any named market maker two or more of (a)–(d) are missing or ambiguous, OR the disclosure is too ambiguous to determine whether market-making agreements or token loans exist, OR the prompt is ignored. Maximum score: 2.5 **Answer** | Market Maker Name | Token Allocation Committed | Term Duration | Structure Name | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | | | | ### 13. CEX / DEX Agreements & Deals Instructions: Projects must disclose all material terms of centralized or decentralized exchange listings that affect token liquidity. For each listing, include in a table: - (a) Exchange name / DEX pool — the exchange name (and, for DEX, the specific pool/pair); - (b) Token allocation for listing — the token allocation supplied or committed for listing as a percentage of total supply; - (c) Term Duration — the duration/term of any listing lockups, liquidity, or incentive programs; and, where applicable, - (d) Native-token listing fees — whether any listing fees were paid in native tokens, with amounts (tokens or % of supply), recipients, and any vesting or lock terms tied to the partnership. If the project has no agreements or deals with CEX or DEX, state that explicitly; doing so earns full credit; cash/fiat fee amounts are not required for this item. Scoring criteria: 2.5 — Either (i) the answer explicitly states there are no CEX/DEX agreements or deals (and no native-token listing fees / "N/A"), or (ii) for every listing/partnership all four items are clearly provided: (a) exchange name (with DEX pair/pool), (b) token allocation as % of total supply (accept token count if % is computable), (c) duration/term of any lockups, liquidity, or incentive programs (accept "open-ended," "month-to-month," or "until terminated on X conditions"; a clear N/A is acceptable where no lockups/incentives apply), (d) native-token listing-fee details when applicable — amount, recipient, and any vesting/lock terms — or a clear "N/A/none" where no native-token fees exist. 0.5 — At least one exchange/pair is named, but there are limited gaps: exactly one of (b)–(d) is missing or ambiguous for one or more named listings, OR aggregate figures are provided across multiple listings rather than per-listing breakdowns, OR native-token fee applicability is unclear. 0 — Listings/partnerships exist but no exchange is named, OR for any named listing two or more of (a)–(d) are missing or ambiguous, OR the disclosure is too ambiguous to determine whether CEX/DEX listings or deals exist, OR the prompt is ignored. Maximum score: 2.5 **Answer** | Exchange Name | Token Allocation Committed | Term Duration | Native Token Listing Fees | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | | | | ### 14. Liquidity Deals and Market Activity Instructions: If a category does not exist or is not applicable, make that clear in plain language (no specific wording required). Scoring criteria: 0 — Two or more of items (a)–(d) are not addressed at all (neither disclosed nor stated N/A), OR an item that exists is described so vaguely that material terms cannot be identified. 1 — Exactly one of the four items (a)–(d) is incomplete, missing, or not expressly marked N/A, provided no existing activity is described so vaguely that material terms cannot be identified. 2 — All four items (a)–(d) are addressed: either the required details are provided for each existing activity, or the category is clearly marked as not applicable / does not exist in plain language. Maximum score: 2 **Answer** #### (a) Token repurchases or secondary-market accumulations (if any) Source of funds, treatment (burn, treasury retention, POL, redistribution, or other), controller/approvals, and whether those tokens may be re-used, re-issued, or permanently removed from circulation. #### (b) Protocol-owned liquidity (POL) Where deployed, total token or dollar size across deployments, controller, and unwind/exit policy. #### (c) Liquidity deals / purchased TVL The total size across all deals, and where the capital participates - no counterparty names needed. #### (d) Token-secured loans/lines (incl. against unissued tokens) Principal, gross position size, collateral, counterparties, and unwind/exit policy. ## Resource Disclosures ### 15. Prior Token Sales & Fundraising Instructions: Disclose all prior token sales by the Project — including fundraising rounds, any material OTC sales to investors, and any discounted market-maker sales. For each sale, provide: - (a) Series Name / Early-Stage Investment Instrument used (i.e. SAFT, STAMP, SAFE, SAFE+Token Warrant, etc.) - (b) Date of sale (at least month & year). - (c) Number of tokens sold (or % of total supply) - (d) Vesting schedule If no prior sales occurred, state that explicitly (e.g., "No prior fundraising, OTC, or discounted MM sales have occurred.") Scoring criteria: 0 — Two or more of items (a)–(d) are missing for any disclosed sale, OR prior sales occurred but are not fully listed, OR the answer is silent on whether prior sales occurred (no explicit "no prior sales" statement). 1 — Exactly one of the four items (a)–(d) is incomplete or missing for a disclosed sale, while prior-sale existence is clear and the sale is otherwise identified. 2 — Either (i) an explicit "no prior sales" statement is provided covering fundraising, OTC, and discounted MM sales, or (ii) every prior sale is listed with all four items: (a) series name / instrument, (b) date (at least month & year), (c) number of tokens sold or % of total supply, and (d) vesting schedule. Maximum score: 2 **Answer** | Series Name | Investment Vehicle | Date Of Sale | Number of tokens sold | Vesting Schedule | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | | | | | ### 16. Operational Funding, Economic Flows, and Resource Provisioning Instructions: Provide a narrative description of the Project's material funding sources, economic flows, and operational provisioning, broken out by entity: Foundation, Lab/DevCo, and DAO. If an entity does not exist, state that explicitly. If an entity exists but does not pursue revenue-generating activity, state how it funds or provisions its operations. Scoring criteria: 2 — All three entities (Foundation, Lab/DevCo, DAO) have their existence addressed (a), and for each existing entity items (b)–(d) are clearly present: material sources of funding or economic inflows, operational use of resources, and labelled onchain resource links with an explanation of what each link shows. Non-existent entities are explicitly stated as such. 1.5 — All entity existences are addressed (a) and (b), (c), and (d) are mostly present for each existing entity, but (d) is incomplete because it provides links without descriptions, provides a single generic link that does not clearly cover treasury/fee activity, or omits links for one existing entity while otherwise explaining funding and resource use. Minor gaps in (c) are acceptable. 0 — One or more entities' existence is not addressed, OR (b) is missing for any existing entity (funding sources unstated and not marked "none"), OR (c) is missing for any existing entity, OR (d) is missing, unlabeled, or does not explain what the links show. Maximum score: 2 **Answer** #### (a) Entity existence Explicitly state whether each of Foundation, Lab/DevCo, and DAO exists. #### (b) Material sources of funding or economic inflows For each existing entity, describe its primary sources of operational funding or economic inflows, if any (e.g., service fees, grants, donations, treasury reserves, token reserves, staking rewards, validator/sequencer income, partnership payments, retained revenue, or other protocol-related receipts). If none, state "none." #### (c) Operational use of resources Briefly describe how those resources are generally used (e.g., development, operations, security, ecosystem support, grants, liquidity support). #### (d) Onchain Resource Usage Provide links to public dashboards and token holder relations reports that help explain on-chain financial activity, treasury activity, fee flows, rewards, or other protocol-controlled resources. Make certain to explain what each link is for. ### 17. Previous Exploits Affecting The Native Token Instructions: If any, list prior exploits or incidents that directly affected the token, token supply, tokenholder balances, token contract, minting controls, burn mechanics, or custody of token supply. This question is not asking about general protocol, application, or smart contract exploits unless the incident directly affected the native token itself. If no prior incidents, state this explicitly (e.g., "No exploits affecting tokenholders or protocol funds as of YYYY-MM-DD"). Scoring criteria: 0 — One or more of (a)–(e) is missing for any disclosed incident, OR incidents are omitted despite known history, OR the answer is silent on whether prior incidents occurred (no explicit "no prior incidents" statement). 1 — Either (i) an explicit "no prior incidents" statement is provided with a date reference, or (ii) every incident is listed with all five required items (a)–(e); item (f) references are optional and do not affect scoring. Maximum score: 1 **Answer** #### (a) Date & component affected Date (YYYY-MM or YYYY-MM-DD), chain(s)/component affected. #### (b) Exploit vector summary Plain-language summary of the exploit vector (what the hack was). #### (c) Quantified impact Quantified impact (assets/tokens affected or a clear "no loss of funds" statement). #### (d) Remediation/response taken Remediation/response taken (patches, upgrades, governance actions, compensation). #### (e) Current status Current status (resolved, in litigation, under investigation, refunded, etc.). #### (f) References (optional) Link(s) to post-mortem/advisory/PR. ### 18. [Optional] Offchain Foundation Or DevCo Income Statement Instructions: Provide a single income statement, expense summary, or comparable operating statement for the primary Foundation or Developer Company. A consolidated or entity-level presentation is acceptable. Balance Sheet and Statement of Cash Flows may be included but are not required. This item is intended to provide transparency into offchain operating resources and expenditures only. Scoring criteria: No score at all. Maximum score: 0 **Answer** | Line Item | Amount | | --- | --- | | | |