Provide a concise narrative that clearly states:
Response
AI agents are reshaping financial workflows and becoming a new interface for payment systems, but they still lack the trust and accuracy required for sensitive data access and major operations. Loyal bridges that gap and builds agentic finance, ensuring trust with a human in the loop for every critical action. It powers standalone products, embedded integrations, and external agentic tools like Claude Code, providing access to agentic financial workflows with uncompromised control, privacy, and accuracy.
Loyal has a treasury with approximately 12 months of burn rate (~$60K/month operating expenses based on Q4 2025). This runway is sufficient to demonstrate early product-market fit and begin scaling the app. Revenue is expected from: (1) fees on transfers and other financial operations, (2) privacy-preserving financial operations, and (3) agentic workflow usage and advanced agentic capabilities.
Trusted agentic finance workflows and privacy-preserving financial operations are permissionlessly available to both Loyal app users and external agentic systems or other integrations.
loyal is an ownership token. It provides:
The protocol's governance is conducted through MetaDAO's futarchy model, where decisions are made via prediction markets rather than traditional voting. Token holders trade on the expected outcomes of proposals, and market prices determine organizational policy. The DAO LLC structure (Marshall Islands via MIDAO) provides legal enforceability for token holder rights, including IP ownership and the ability to propose treasury liquidation. Over time, governance may evolve to incorporate additional on-chain mechanisms, but the core futarchy model and legal wrapper are expected to remain foundational.
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:
For any non-existent entity, explicitly mention it does not exist. External links may be included but they will not factor into the score.
Response
Full Name | Official Title | Prior Experience |
|---|---|---|
Chris Cherniakov | CEO | Colgate University undergrad, Applied Math and Computer Science. 3 publications on AI in peer-reviewed journals. Turned down PhD route to move to San Francisco with the team and build Loyal. |
Rodion Aleksandrov | COO | Physics MSc at 19. He used to work with lasers and rockets. Now he's the go-to person to onboard new users and make them fall in love with Loyal. |
Vasiliy Tiselko | CTO | Deep academic background: computational neuroscience, physics, and network science (10+ peer-reviewed publications). |
Vasiliy Kondyrev | CFO | Philosophy and graph theory MSc. Built crypto vertical in one of the biggest PE funds in Europe. Investor relations and the legal side of the venture. Fluent in Chinese, responsible for Asian community outreach and partnerships. |
Full Name | Official Title | Prior Experience |
|---|---|---|
N/A — No separate Foundation entity exists |
Full Name | Official Title | Prior Experience |
|---|---|---|
Governed via MetaDAO futarchy mechanism | ||
Note: Loyal operates as a DAO LLC (Marshall Islands) with no separate Foundation or DevCo entities. All IP and operations are consolidated under the DAO structure. |
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. Item (c) may be left absent if not applicable. Even if there is no DAO, there must be an answer to (d)
Response
AQyyTwCKemeeMu8ZPZFxrXMbVwAYTSbBhi1w4PBrhvYEFor 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.
Response
The protocol operates under a single legal entity: Loyal DAO LLC, incorporated in the Marshall Islands. No separate foundation or development company exists.
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.
Response
The protocol operates under a single legal entity: Loyal DAO LLC, incorporated in the Marshall Islands. No separate foundation or development company exists.
Disclose launch and initial supply details in a single initial allocation schedule covering the token's launch. Include:
Response
$0.25
$LOYAL
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.
Response
No airdrop.
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.
Response
Market Maker Name | Token Allocation Committed | Term Duration | Structure Name |
|---|---|---|---|
No agreements or deals with third-party market makers that include a loan or allocation of LOYAL tokens have been conducted. |
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. If no native-token listing fees were paid, state that explicitly; cash/fiat fee amounts are not required for this item.
Response
Exchange Name | Token Allocation Committed | Term Duration | Native Token Listing Fees |
|---|---|---|---|
No CEX listings agreements. No DEX listings agreements. | |||
20% of the USDC raised during the ICO was allocated directly to seeding the AMM liquidity pool, ensuring immediate tradability upon launch. This liquidity allocation was defined as part of the ICO terms and is not subject to separate market-making contracts or third-party liquidity provider agreements. |
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.")
Response
Series Name | Investment Vehicle | Date Of Sale | Number of tokens sold | Vesting Schedule |
|---|---|---|---|---|
MetaDAO ICO | MetaDAO ICO | October 18, 2025 | 10,000,000 LOYAL | None, unlocked at TGE |
Amount raised: $2,500,000 USDC
|
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").
Response
No exploits affecting tokenholders or protocol funds as of 2026-02-09.
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?
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. Loyal is solely responsible for the content, accuracy, and legality of its disclosures.
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?
Response
General Risk Factors:
Token classification. The governance token may be classified differently across jurisdictions. If any regulator determines it constitutes a security rather than a governance or utility token, the project and token holders could face registration requirements, trading restrictions, or enforcement actions. The U.S. SEC’s evolving position on governance tokens, and parallel developments in the EU (MiCA), Singapore (MAS), and other jurisdictions, create ongoing uncertainty that the project cannot resolve unilaterally.
Entity-level regulatory risk. The project operates under a Marshall Islands DAO LLC structure. While the Marshall Islands has adopted favorable digital asset legislation, this jurisdiction may face diplomatic, banking, or regulatory pressure that creates operational friction. Regulatory changes in any jurisdiction where the development team operates, token holders reside, or users access the protocol could impose licensing requirements, restrict operations, or compel structural changes to the DAO LLC or its governing arrangements.
MetaDAO protocol dependency. The project’s governance infrastructure is provided by MetaDAO, which is currently in beta. MetaDAO’s documentation discloses that the MetaDAO team currently retains the ability to override decision markets in extreme scenarios. Changes to MetaDAO’s protocol, terms, or operational status could affect the project’s ability to conduct governance or complete token-related actions.
Tokenholder tax treatment. The tax treatment of ownership tokens is uncertain and varies significantly across jurisdictions. Depending on jurisdiction, taxable events may include receipt of tokens at TGE, trading or transferring tokens, participating in governance markets, or receiving any future distributions authorized by governance. Token holders are solely responsible for determining and complying with their own tax obligations. The project does not provide tax advice and makes no representations regarding tax treatment.
Jurisdictional access. Token holders and users are responsible for ensuring their participation complies with applicable laws in their own jurisdiction. The project makes no representation that holding or trading the token is lawful in any particular jurisdiction**.**
Smart contract vulnerabilities. Logic errors or implementation flaws in the project’s on-chain programs could result in loss of funds or unintended behavior. No audit process eliminates all risk; vulnerabilities may exist that audits, internal review, or community testing fail to detect, including novel attack vectors that emerge after deployment.
Solana runtime dependency. The project’s contracts execute on Solana. Changes to Solana’s compute limits, runtime behavior, validator set, or network stability could disrupt contract execution or proof verification. A Solana network outage or consensus failure would render on-chain governance and treasury operations temporarily inaccessible.
MetaDAO decision market dependency. Governance, including all treasury actions and token issuance, is routed through MetaDAO’s decision market infrastructure. A bug, exploit, or operational failure in MetaDAO’s contracts could prevent proposals from being created, resolved, or executed, effectively freezing governance until the issue is resolved.
Decision market liquidity and manipulation risk. Proposal markets rely on sufficient trading participation to produce accurate price signals. Thin liquidity in PASS or FAIL markets, particularly for smaller or less actively traded projects, could allow a single large participant to influence a TWAP outcome. MetaDAO’s lagging TWAP mechanism mitigates but does not eliminate this risk.
AMM liquidity pool risk. A portion of ICO proceeds and tokens are deployed to an AMM liquidity pool at launch. Impermanent loss, pool imbalances, or low liquidity depth could affect the tradability of the token and the value of treasury-held liquidity positions**.**
Performance tranche unlock pressure. Team tokens, where applicable, unlock in tranches tied to price milestones (2x, 4x, 8x, 16x, and 32x of ICO valuation). Each milestone, if reached, creates a discrete unlock event that may result in selling pressure as recipients become able to claim and liquidate tranches.
Governance can authorize new token issuance. Mint authority over the token sits with the DAO treasury, governed by MetaDAO’s decision market mechanism. A governance proposal that passes could authorize the issuance of additional tokens, which would dilute existing holders. Token holders cannot assume the current supply is a permanent ceiling.
Governance participation risk. Decision markets require active, capitalized participation to function as intended. If governance markets are thinly traded, due to low token holder engagement, small float, or poor market depth, proposal outcomes may reflect the preferences of a small number of participants rather than the broader holder base. Apathetic or concentrated governance could lead to outcomes that are adverse to the majority of token holders.
Treasury concentration risk. All ICO proceeds flow into a single on-chain treasury governed by decision markets. A successful malicious proposal, a smart contract exploit targeting the treasury, or a sustained period of governance dysfunction could result in partial or total loss of treasury assets with limited recourse.
Protocol revenue assumptions. Value accrual to the token depends on the protocol generating meaningful usage and, over time, revenue that governance allocates toward token holders. If the protocol fails to attract sustained usage, the treasury will not grow beyond ICO proceeds, and there is no mechanism guaranteeing any return to token holders other than a governance-authorized liquidation proposal**.**