Provide a concise narrative that clearly states each of (a)–(e) below.
Flash trade offers oracle based, pool-to-peer asset backed perpetual futures at lowest possible fees and highest leverage with guaranteed payoffs and protection against counterparty manipulation across a variety of assets under a single unified decentralized exchange interface.
The team takes 50% of the revenue the protocol currently generates while having a bootstrapped runway of about $2 million in various assets (like $USDC, $SOL, $BTC, and $ZEC excluding the protocol’s native token $FAF) to support the ongoing and future operations.
Flash offers various multi-token pools categorized by the index of assets comprising the pool and the perpetual futures markets listed against the pool. These pools are funded by independent liquidity providers to underwrite trades matched against the respective pools in exchange for a fee alongside the underlying realizable profits/losses. Traders can access liquidity from these pools to back margined perpetual positions settled using oracles that fetch prices from aggregated sources guaranteeing the ability to realize PnL with predefined spreads and eliminating the risk of unwanted manipulation.
The token offers the rights to 50% share of revenue and utility in the form of discounts in trading fees when staked and futarchic governance rights through MetaDAO’s ownership model over the project’s IP, programs and token mint authority.
Governance control rests entirely with the DAO representing token holders and any future change would require a governance vote.
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.
Full Name | Entity | Official Title | Prior Experience |
|---|---|---|---|
Anas Abdul Khader | Labs | CEO and Co-founder | Exited as COO of a stealth drone defense company. Founder of AAK Capital, a market maker on BitMEX. Later spent time as a DeFi degen while building an on-chain fund management protocol on Ethereum. |
Mohammed Raashid Junaid | Labs | CTO and Co-founder | Full-stack engineer with 3 years of experience building software solutions as a consultant in the UK, followed by web3 development on Ethereum and Solana blockchains for the last 5 years. |
Mohammed Zoheb Shahzan | Labs | Director of Engineering and Co-founder | 2 years of collective experience working at Deloitte and Salesforce building infrastructure for institutions, before moving into smart contract development across Ethereum and Solana. |
Abdul Wahed | Labs | Lead Backend engineer and Co-founder | Full-stack engineer with 2 years at NCR Atleos, now bringing his expertise to Web3 and backend infrastructure. |
Mohammed Abdul Bari Rehan | Labs | Lead Rust Engineer and Co-founder | Silver medalist at the International Mathematical Olympiad with deep expertise in on-chain development, having studied blockchain architecture and smart contract programming since graduation. |
Natasha Diaz Proll | Foundation | Independent Director/ | Worked as representative of multiple corporations to ease the process of day to day legal proceedings and have detailed understanding of inner workings of onchain protocols. |
Blockworks note: Foundation - Futarchy Technology Foundation (F.TEC) |
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).
The Futarchy governed DAO owns full rights to all codebases, token mint, token liquidity, trademarks and the brand.
The team/co-founders listed above have the sole rights to put up governance proposals while the outcome is decided by a futarchy based voting system powered by MetaDAO. The team acts as the sole governance-executor authority and manages the program upgrade authority through a timelocked 3/7 multisig operated via squads.
All token holders who stake/lock their tokens are eligible to receive the corresponding share from 50% of the revenue and the staked tokens unlock linearly over a period of 3 months once requested to unstake and continue to accrue revenue over the remaining locked portion of their stake. In addition to this, stakers are entitled to discounts on trading fees and increased referral rebates on the platform based on a tiered system.
The token holders who stake get 50% of all protocol revenue every day and have full voting rights over governance proposals.
The DAO can be dissolved either by the team or the Futarchy Foundation upon a vote put forth which needs to be approved by token holders.
For the Primary Foundation do the following independently. If an entity 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 are directly involved in the issuance of the native token at launch.
FUTARCHY TECHNOLOGY FOUNDATION (a Private Interest Foundation, incorporated under the laws of the Republic of Panama)
The entity owns all IP related to Flash Trade including the brand, codebases and token mint authority.
The DAO solely acts as a representative of FAF holders interest and does not have authority to act upon itself while it can only reject execution of proposal if they go against the laws of the country it's established in.
The foundation can only exert direct influence in the cases DevCo takes certain steps that go against the rights of token holders and the law of incorporated country.
The foundation has no direct control over the onchain programs or multi sigs.
No such mechanism exists the DAO serves as a representative to carry out the final governance outcomes as voted by the token holders.
For the Primary DevCo do the following independently. If an entity 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 are directly involved in the issuance of the native token at launch.
D5 LABS INC. a company incorporated and existing under the laws of the Jurisdiction of Panama
Have update and upgrade control overs repos/code
The Primary Dev Co have full control over proposal creation that goes ahead for vote and upon its approval are obliged to follow it. Dev Co has no control over treasury or token mint authority.
No except for putting up proposal that token holders can vote on.
No
50% of the all revenue generated by the onchain programs goes to the primary Dev Co as money to maintain and upgrade the underlying infrastructure.
Disclose launch and initial supply details in a single initial allocation schedule covering the token's launch.
80% of the supply was distributed amongst holders of the beast NFT (beast NFT was minted to bootstrap the initial liquidity pool to launch the exchange) 1 billion issued at launch and 800,000,000 distributed amongst users of Flash
We launched at a fixed price of 0.005c and added liquidity at the marketcap of $5 million because the total evaluation of the NFTs we had launched earlier through tensor launchpad was at $5 million. The team bootstrapped the pool using their own capital with the FAF liquidity that was allotted.
FAF (CA: FAFxVxnkzZHMCodkWyoccgUNgVScqMw2mhhQBYDFjFAF)
Total Supply is 1,000,000,000 tokens and its a mintable token; the mint authority is held by the DAO and governed using futarchy.
Currently only advisor tokens and incubation tokens are being vested which amounts to 5.925% i.e. 59,250,000 FAF tokens
Address each of the following sub-items based on the project's airdrop status. If a sub-item does not apply to the project's situation, state that explicitly.
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:
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.
Blockworks note: We don't have any such deals with any market maker or individual.
Projects must disclose all material terms of centralized or decentralized exchange listings that affect token liquidity. For each listing, include in a table:
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.
Blockworks note: No agreements as such with any CEX or DEX.
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:
If no prior sales occurred, state that explicitly (e.g., "No prior fundraising, OTC, or discounted MM sales have occurred.").
Blockworks note: No prior fundraising activity, OTC or discounted MM sales have occurred.
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").
Blockworks note: No exploits affecting the native token.
Describe material risk factors across the three categories below. Each category includes prompts to address at a minimum.
(a) Regulatory, Legal & Tax Risks — Describe how evolving laws and regulations could affect the project by answering, at a minimum, questions like:
Impact of Regulatory Change on TGE and Listings: (If applicable) How could evolving or conflicting laws and regulations affect your ability to complete the TGE, deliver tokens to purchasers, and list or maintain the token on trading venues in key jurisdictions?
Entity-Level Regulatory Impact: (If applicable) How could regulatory or legal changes impact your core entities (Foundation, DevCo, DAO, affiliated service providers), including enforcement actions, licensing requirements, or forced changes to structure or operations?
Tokenholder Tax Treatment: (If applicable) What uncertainties exist around how tokenholders may be taxed, and make clear that tokenholders are responsible for understanding their own tax obligations?
Jurisdictional & User Access Restrictions: (If applicable) If the project restricts access for certain jurisdictions or user types (e.g., U.S. persons, sanctioned countries, retail vs. professional), what are those restrictions and what risks do they create for users and for the project?
(b) Protocol, Technology & Security Risks — Describe risks to network and contract reliability, correctness, and safety by answering, at a minimum, questions like:
Bugs and Design Flaws: (If applicable) What bugs, design flaws, or implementation errors could exist in your core protocol code, smart contracts, and any bridges, rollups, or oracles that you depend on, and how could these lead to loss of funds or disruption of the protocol?
Security Measures & Their Limitations: (If applicable) What security measures have you taken (audits, formal verification, bug bounties), and what types of failures might these measures still fail to detect or prevent?
(c) Token Economics, Unlocks & Incentive Risks — Describe how the token's economic design and supply schedule could affect holders by answering, at a minimum, questions like:
Critical Economic Assumptions: (If applicable) Which economic assumptions (e.g., staking yields, fee revenue, liquidity incentives, MEV capture, demand for blockspace) are critical for protocol security, utility, and governance, and what happens if those assumptions fail?
Governance Control over Monetary Policy & Rewards: (If applicable) To what extent can governance change monetary policy, fee parameters, or reward allocations (e.g., inflation rate, treasury flows, incentive programs), and how could such changes adversely affect tokenholders?
Impact of Regulatory Change on TGE and Listings Not applicable Entity-Level Regulatory Impact Regulatory changes might force the current entity to change the jurisdiction of its foundation to safeguard the rights of the DAO that owns the exchange and has full rights to FLASH.TRADE's domain, codebase, and IP. Tokenholder Tax Treatment According to the terms and conditions of Flash.trade, individuals are responsible for filing taxes according to their own jurisdiction's requirements, while the exchange, being fully onchain, can be audited in any way needed to obtain details for tax filing purposes. Jurisdictional & User Access Restrictions We restrict users from the US, UAE, and sanctioned countries, and have clear terms and conditions covering this.
Bugs and Design Flaws The protocol depends on external oracles (Pyth Pro) for its core pricing engine and any misconfiguration either internal or external can potentially cause direct loss of funds. Security Measures & Their Limitations We have had one economic and two separate code audits along with ongoing efforts to build an integrated formal verification system that continuously updates based on changing market and protocol dynamics. These systems can’t fully detect or prevent oracle manipulation attacks that are beyond the protocols control.
Critical Economic Assumptions Token's utility is heavily tied around revenue generation of the exchange and if the exchange does not make money it will affect the structure of staking tokens to get revenue share. Governance Control over Monetary Policy & Rewards The governance proposal can only be put up by core team and every proposal that is put up can affect the monetary policy or any future reward allocation that would require minting of new tokens which can only happen if a proposal is put and it passes.
This Token Transparency Filing is provided for general informational purposes only. Blockworks reviews completeness only and does not verify or warrant the accuracy of individual answers. Flash Trade is solely responsible for the content, accuracy, and legality of its disclosures.