Synapse
Networks · InteroperabilityToken Transparency Filing
Project & Team
Description of Project
Provide a concise narrative that clearly states each of (a)–(e) below.
- (a) Problem the project solves — The problem the project is solving.
- (b) Operational priorities — Provide a high-level description of how the project expects to support ongoing development and operations over time.
- (c) High-level project overview — How the project works at a high level.
- (d) Primary token functions — The primary functions of the token (e.g. gov participation).
- (e) Control surface reliance — If any, briefly describe the anticipated or possible evolution of the protocol's governance/control model.
(a) Problem the project solves
Blockchains are structurally isolated networks. Each operates with its own code base, security model, and validation method, making it difficult for assets, smart contract calls, and arbitrary data to move between them without relying on centralized intermediaries. Synapse Protocol is a cross-chain communications network designed to enable trustless communication and settlement between chains, removing that dependence.
(Source: Synapse Landing, Interchain Future)
(b) Operational priorities
Synapse Protocol's operational priorities are the continued development and expansion of the Synapse Interchain Network and Synapse Chain, funding research, engineering, and infrastructure work through Foundation-administered grants, and managing treasury, liquidity, and market-structure actions through DAO governance. Since SIP-43 (April 2025), governance and intellectual property have been transferred to the Cortex DAO, and Synapse Labs has shifted its product focus to Hypercall, an onchain options venue on Hyperliquid governed by SYN.
(Source: Grant to Interoperability Inc, SYN Buyback Proposal, Messari — Synapse)
(c) High-level project overview
Synapse Protocol consists of a cross-chain messaging framework and an optimistic-security model for validating cross-chain transactions. Later Synapse Interchain Network materials describe an optimistic proof-of-stake interchain network coordinated through Synapse Chain, where Agents, Notaries, and Guards stake SYN tokens, confirm transactions, and submit fraud proofs. The bridge and messaging contract surface spans more than fifteen EVM and non-EVM chains.
(Source: Synapse Landing, Interchain Future)
(d) Primary token functions
$SYN is the governance token of the Synapse DAO and, since SIP-43, the Cortex DAO. SYN holders with at least 550,000 SYN can submit proposals; proposals pass with at least 50% + 1 of votes cast and a minimum quorum of 2,250,000 SYN. The DAO uses SYN to direct emissions, incentivize bridge and product liquidity, fund grants, and manage treasury actions. SYN is also proposed as a staking bond for network security roles in the Synapse Interchain Network. Under SIP-43, SYN is indefinitely interchangeable with the CX token at a rate of 1 SYN = 5.5 CX, with SYN remaining the primary liquid market pair.
(Source: Synapse DAO Docs, $SYN Token Docs, SYN 2.0 — Major Protocol Upgrade Preparation, Messari — Synapse)
(e) Control surface reliance
The current control surface relies on DAO-directed governance (via Snapshot) over emissions, treasury actions, grants, and Foundation-recognition mechanics. SIP-43 transferred protocol governance and intellectual property from the Synapse Foundation to the Cortex DAO. Synapse Labs, the current operating contractor, retains discretion over product direction within the scope of DAO-approved economic arrangements, including the Hypercall buildout. The DAO retains authority to alter monetary policy, emissions parameters, treasury deployment, and staking design by on-chain vote.
(Source: Recognizing The Synapse Foundation, Grant to Interoperability Inc, SYN Buyback Proposal, Messari — Synapse)
Known Project Team
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Max Bronstein | Labs | COO (joined March 2022) | Co-built DeFi lending markets at Dharma; early investor and platform developer at Coinbase |
AureliusBTC (pseudonym) | Labs | Core Contributor / Lead | Original Nerve Finance contributor; key incident responder for the November 2021 AMM exploit |
Socrates0x (pseudonym) | Labs | Core Contributor | Nerve Finance / Synapse core team |
Caesar0x (pseudonym) | Labs | Core Contributor | Nerve Finance / Synapse core team |
Trajan0x (pseudonym) | Labs | Core Contributor | Nerve Finance / Synapse core team |
ChiTimesChi (pseudonym) | Labs | Core Contributor | Nerve Finance / Synapse core team |
Blockworks note: Labs/DevCo: The core founding contributors operate pseudonymously. No legal names beyond Max Bronstein have been publicly disclosed for Labs/DevCo team members. |
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. Even if there is no DAO, there must be an answer to (d).
- (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 onchain 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) Value accrual & holder rights — If any, describe the current rights of tokenholders over revenue distribution and the treasury.
- (e) Dissolution authority — State who can dissolve/wind up the DAO and by what mechanism (e.g., onchain vote threshold, board resolution of a legal wrapper).
(a) IP ownership & control
No public disclosure identifies which entity — the Synapse Foundation, Interoperability Inc., Synapse Labs, or the Cortex DAO — currently holds registered IP rights, trademark rights, or formal code ownership over the Synapse Protocol repositories. The Messari summary of SIP-43 states that "ownership, intellectual property, and governance" were transferred to the Cortex DAO as of April 2025, but the underlying governance documents confirming the formal IP transfer mechanism are not available in the verified public record.
(Source: Synapse Contracts Repository, Sanguine Repository, Messari — Synapse)
(b) Contract/admin powers
The Synapse DAO votes on Snapshot using SYN tokens to direct emissions policy, approve buybacks, recognize and fund the Synapse Foundation, approve contractor grants, approve protocol-owned-liquidity loans, and set rewards-management multisig parameters. The governance threshold for proposal submission is 550,000 SYN; the adoption threshold is 50% + 1 of votes cast with a minimum quorum of 2,250,000 SYN. Reviewed proposals include a 4/5 multisig for SYN token rewards management, a proposed $5 million protocol-owned-liquidity loan to Synapse Labs for an RFQ relayer, and the SIP-43 governance transfer to the Cortex DAO. No single canonical public governance charter enumerating all final executor paths, pause keys, or upgrade authorities is available in the verified public record.
(Source: Synapse DAO Docs, SYN 2.0 — Major Protocol Upgrade Preparation, SYN Buyback Proposal, Recognizing The Synapse Foundation, Grant to Interoperability Inc, $5M Protocol Owned Liquidity RFQ Relayer Proposal, To Create a 4/5 Multisig for $SYN Token Rewards Management, Messari — Synapse)
(c) Locked-token rights (conditional)
A staking-utility proposal describes a future mechanism in which Agents, Notaries, and Guards post single-sided SYN bonds to perform network security roles, with ETH-paid tips used to buy back and burn SYN. This mechanism has not been implemented as of the verified filing date. Ordinary SYN holders do not currently gain additional treasury or governance rights through a separate lock-up mechanism; all governance rights flow from holding SYN above the proposal and voting thresholds described in (b) above.
(Source: Revised Proposal: Enhancing $SYN Utility through Network Security and Staking, SYN 2.0 — Major Protocol Upgrade Preparation)
(d) Value accrual & holder rights
SYN holders accrue value through DAO-directed treasury management, including governance-approved buybacks, treasury loans generating protocol-owned liquidity, and grant funding that supports protocol development. No standing revenue-distribution or holder-cashflow right exists beyond those governance-controlled treasury decisions. Bridge fees (100% of bridge fees and 60% of swap fees, per public forum data) flow to the DAO treasury, from which disbursements require a successful governance vote.
(Source: SYN Buyback Proposal, $5M Protocol Owned Liquidity RFQ Relayer, Grant to Synapse Labs, Synapse Emissions Reduction)
(e) Dissolution authority
No public disclosure identifies the mechanism or threshold by which the Synapse DAO, Cortex DAO, or any associated legal wrapper may be dissolved or wound up.
(Source: Recognizing The Synapse Foundation)
Primary Foundation
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.
- (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. 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 DevCo.
- (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.
(a) Entity
The Synapse Foundation is a Cayman Islands exempted foundation company. Its recognition as the protocol's legal and payment interface was formalized by DAO vote in the "Recognizing The Synapse Foundation" proposal.
(Source: Recognizing The Synapse Foundation)
(b) IP ownership & control
No public disclosure identifies what, if any, IP, code repositories, or trademark rights the Synapse Foundation currently holds. SIP-43 transferred protocol governance and IP to the Cortex DAO as of April 2025; whether the Foundation retained any residual IP interests after that transfer is not confirmed in the verified public record.
(Source: Recognizing The Synapse Foundation, Messari — Synapse)
(c) Powers over DAO, treasury, protocol-controlled resources, and token administration
The Foundation serves as the legal and payment interface for DAO-approved service agreements. In governance materials, the Foundation acts as the counterparty that can terminate the Original Agreement with Interoperability, pay Synapse Labs under a new Services Contribution and Grant Agreement, and enforce approved DAO proposal terms for the RFQ relayer loan. The Foundation does not hold autonomous authority over emissions or treasury policy outside DAO-approved directions.
(Source: Recognizing The Synapse Foundation, Grant to Interoperability Inc, Grant to Synapse Labs, $5M Protocol Owned Liquidity RFQ Relayer)
(d) Powers over DevCo
The Foundation can affect current operating contractors through agreement termination, payment administration, and enforcement of approved proposal terms. No public disclosure establishes a broader unilateral Foundation right to control Synapse Labs or any other DevCo entity.
(Source: Grant to Interoperability Inc, Grant to Synapse Labs, $5M Protocol Owned Liquidity RFQ Relayer)
(e) Contract/admin powers
No public disclosure identifies a Foundation-controlled pause key, upgrade authority, or governance-executor multisig. The public record shows the Foundation named as the enforcer of approved DAO proposal terms for the RFQ relayer loan and as the legal counterparty for grant arrangements.
(Source: Grant to Synapse Labs, $5M Protocol Owned Liquidity RFQ Relayer)
(f) Current economic arrangements and distribution policies
The Foundation operates on a $150,000 per year operating budget, as established in the recognition proposal. It administered a grant relationship with Interoperability Inc. under the original services agreement and, under a later proposal, a $600,000-per-month grant arrangement with Synapse Labs payable in USDC, other stablecoins, or other agreed tokens. No profit-distribution policy or insider distribution mechanism has been publicly disclosed.
(Source: Recognizing The Synapse Foundation, Grant to Interoperability Inc, Grant to Synapse Labs)
Primary Dev Co
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.
- (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. revenue), token administration, or reward parameters, and the method/threshold for each.
- (d) Powers over Foundation — Explain whether the DevCo 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.
(a) Entity
No single primary DevCo directly involved in issuance of the SYN token at launch has been publicly identified with a confirmed legal name, entity type, and jurisdiction. The Synapse Explorer Terms of Service identify Interoperability Inc. as the interface operator, with disputes governed under JAMS arbitration seated in Kent County, Delaware, indicating a U.S.-nexus legal entity. Interoperability Inc. served as the legacy services recipient under the original Foundation-administered grant agreement. Synapse Labs is identified in later governance materials as the proposed successor operating contractor. The terms of service for the Synapse Explorer (last updated February 2023) name Interoperability Inc. as the provider.
(Source: Synapse Explorer Terms, Grant to Interoperability Inc, Grant to Synapse Labs)
(b) IP ownership & control
No public disclosure identifies what IP, code repositories, or trademarks Interoperability Inc. or Synapse Labs holds or controls. SIP-43 states that "ownership, intellectual property, and governance" were transferred to the Cortex DAO, but the pre-transfer ownership position of each entity is not confirmed in the verified public record.
(Source: Grant to Interoperability Inc, Synapse Contracts Repository, Messari — Synapse)
(c) Powers over DAO, treasury, protocol-controlled resources, and token administration
Neither Synapse Labs nor Interoperability Inc. holds a disclosed unilateral right to direct DAO governance or token administration. The governance record shows DAO-approved economic arrangements under which Synapse Labs receives a $5 million protocol-owned-liquidity loan to deploy an RFQ relayer and a proposed $600,000 monthly grant, with repayment, update, and enforcement terms defined through governance-linked agreements.
(Source: Grant to Synapse Labs, $5M Protocol Owned Liquidity RFQ Relayer)
(d) Powers over Foundation
No public disclosure establishes a direct or indirect right of Synapse Labs or Interoperability Inc. to direct decisions of the Synapse Foundation.
(Source: Grant to Interoperability Inc)
(e) Contract/admin powers
No public disclosure identifies a DevCo-controlled pause key, upgrade authority, or governance-executor multisig. The governance record shows Synapse Labs as the proposed borrower and operator for the RFQ relayer loan, with quarterly update obligations.
(Source: Sanguine Repository, $5M Protocol Owned Liquidity RFQ Relayer)
(f) Current economic arrangements and distribution policies
Two contractor-style economic arrangements are documented in the public record: the legacy Foundation-administered grant to Interoperability Inc. for research, engineering, smart-contract development, and infrastructure provisioning; and the later proposed $600,000 per month grant to Synapse Labs together with a separate $5 million loan to deploy an RFQ relayer. No DevCo profit-distribution policy has been publicly disclosed.
(Source: Grant to Interoperability Inc, Grant to Synapse Labs, $5M Protocol Owned Liquidity RFQ Relayer)
Token Supply & Allocations
Initial Allocation
Disclose launch and initial supply details in a single initial allocation schedule covering the token's launch.
- (a) Launch supply totals — The total number of tokens issued at launch, the total number of tokens locked at launch or the total number of tokens unlocked at launch.
- (b) Recipient categories & use of funds — The recipient categories with brief explanations as to how the category will use the tokens so an auditor can distinguish each bucket.
- (c) Initial price per token (if applicable) — The initial price per token at TGE. If the token launched via a liquidity bootstrapping mechanism, auction, or other price-discovery process rather than a fixed offering price, describe that mechanism and the final market set price instead. If no fixed price was set, state so.
- (d) Ticker / market symbol — The ticker/market symbol.
- (e) Total supply & supply regime — The total supply and whether the supply is fixed (if not explain inflation rate or deflation rate).
- (f) Initial vesting / release schedules — The initial vesting/release schedules (identify which categories/recipients are subject to vesting and the high-level timing logic).
(a) Launch supply totals
SYN launched on August 28–29, 2021 as a rebrand of Nerve Finance. The NRV-to-SYN conversion rate was 1 NRV = 2.5 SYN. At launch, 155,000,000 SYN (62% of the 250,000,000 maximum supply) were distributed via the genesis airdrop to eligible wallet addresses; the remaining 95,000,000 SYN (38% of maximum supply) were reserved for future distribution through emissions to transaction validators and liquidity providers. No public disclosure establishes a precise number of tokens locked versus unlocked on the exact launch date beyond these categories.
(Source: Synapse Bridge — Distribution, Uphold — SYN, BowTiedFrank Substack)
(b) Recipient categories & use of funds
The following categories are documented in the public record:
- Category: Genesis Airdrop
- Allocation: 62% (155,000,000 SYN)
- Use: Distributed to NRV holders at snapshot date (September 22, 2021) and prior Nerve Finance liquidity providers
- Category: Future Distribution (emissions)
- Allocation: 26.8%
- Use: Ongoing emissions to liquidity providers across supported pools, governed by DAO
- Category: Prior Distribution to Liquidity Providers
- Allocation: 7.8%
- Use: Distributed to Nerve Finance / early Synapse liquidity providers
- Category: Protocol-Owned Liquidity
- Allocation: 2.2%
- Use: DAO-controlled protocol liquidity
- Category: SynapseDAO Loan to Market Makers
- Allocation: 1.2%
- Use: Loaned to market makers under DAO-approved agreements
(Source: Bitget — SYN Token Allocation, Synapse Bridge — Distribution)
(c) Initial price per token (if applicable)
SYN did not launch via a fixed-price public sale or ICO. The token launched via the genesis airdrop on August 28–29, 2021 to NRV holders and prior liquidity providers. Price discovery began at approximately $1.06 on launch per CoinGecko data, before reaching an all-time high of $4.92 on October 24, 2021. No fixed offering price was set.
(Source: Uphold — SYN, CoinGecko — SYN)
(d) Ticker / market symbol
SYN
(Source: $SYN Token Docs)
(e) Total supply & supply regime
The maximum supply is 250,000,000 SYN, a fixed hard cap. As of September 2025, the circulating supply is approximately 219,000,000 SYN (~88% of the total supply). The supply is not fixed-emission inflationary; all future SYN emissions are governed by the DAO. A 2024 governance proposal (SYN 2.0) sought to remove the 250,000,000 cap to enable future staking and validator incentive design; the status of that vote is not confirmed as passed in the verified public record. SYN is also designated as indefinitely interchangeable with the CX (Cortex) token at a rate of 1 SYN = 5.5 CX under SIP-43.
(Source: Synapse Bridge — Distribution, Kraken Canada — SYN Crypto Asset Statement, $SYN Token Docs, SYN 2.0 — Major Protocol Upgrade Preparation)
(f) Initial vesting / release schedules
The genesis airdrop recipients (62% of supply) received SYN with no disclosed vesting schedule; tokens were distributed directly to eligible wallet addresses. The remaining supply (38%) is released through DAO-directed emissions to liquidity providers and validators on a schedule that the DAO may alter by governance vote. SIP-5 previously altered emissions to reflect pool usage, with emissions targeted to stabilize at 725,000 SYN per week (subject to further DAO modification). No separate investor, team, or insider vesting schedule has been publicly disclosed.
(Source: Synapse Bridge — Distribution, BowTiedFrank Substack)
Airdrop Process
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.
- (a) Planned but not yet executed airdrop — If the project has planned but not yet airdropped, commit to publishing a recipient wallet list in a public channel and provide it to Blockworks quarterly until the initial TGE airdrop is fully completed. Additionally, generally state the possible target user segments (e.g., "stakers of X," "Aave users") and the allocation method (e.g., proportional to ve-balance or net position).
- (b) Executed airdrop — If the project has already airdropped, point to a per-address source such as CSV/TSV/JSON files, a Dune table, a full Merkle dump, GitHub repo files embedding per-address allocations, or RPC endpoints that expose claim/amount data; explorer links alone do not count. Additionally, clearly state covered user segments (e.g., "stakers of X," "Aave users") and the allocation method (e.g., proportional to ve-balance or net position).
- (c) No airdrop planned or conducted — If the project does not plan to conduct an airdrop for TGE and has never conducted one, state so plainly (e.g., "We have never conducted an airdrop to date and do not plan to execute one").
-
Planned but not yet executed airdrop: Not applicable. The SYN genesis airdrop was executed in 2021.
-
Executed airdrop: Per-address source: The source text does not address a per-address allocation source. Nothing in the provided material points to a CSV/TSV/JSON file, Dune table, Merkle dump, GitHub file embedding per-address allocations, or claim/amount RPC endpoint — nor does it state that no such source exists. I'm not drafting an assertion either way here, since a "no per-address source has been identified" statement needs to rest on an actual search of the public record rather than on the absence of a mention in the old answer.
Covered user segments and allocation method: The SYN genesis airdrop was executed on August 28–29, 2021. Eligible recipients were NRV (Nerve Finance) token holders as of the snapshot date, and prior Nerve Finance / early Synapse liquidity providers. The conversion rate was 1 NRV = 2.5 SYN. A total of 155,000,000 SYN (62% of the 250,000,000 maximum supply) were distributed via this airdrop. (Source: Uphold — SYN, BowTiedFrank Substack, Synapse Bridge — Distribution)
-
No airdrop planned or conducted: Not applicable. Synapse has conducted an airdrop.
Transactions & Market Structures
Market Maker Agreements & Deals
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.
- Market Maker Name: DWF Labs
- Token Allocation Committed: USD 500,000 notional amount of SYN tokens, with exact token count determined at transfer-time pricing
- Term Duration: 12 months
- Structure Name: Token loan with a European call option covering 100% of the loaned tokens at a strike price equal to 7-day TWAP multiplied by a 150% premium
- Market Maker Name: Selini Capital and DWF Labs (joint)
- Token Allocation Committed: USD 1,250,000 loan denominated in USDC or USDT; no native-token percentage of supply disclosed
- Term Duration: 12 months
- Structure Name: Stablecoin loan with a call option at 110% of the first 7-day TWAP price at term end
Blockworks note: The public governance record reflects two market-making proposal surfaces. The verified public record does not confirm whether one superseded the other or whether both were executed.
(Source: DWF Labs Market Making Proposal, Correction: Loan for Market Making)
CEX / DEX Agreements & Deals
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.
- Exchange Name: SYN-FRAX liquidity pool (DEX venue not identified in the proposal)
- Token Allocation Committed: 350,000 SYN of DAO liquidity incentives; Frax separately described as holding over 7,000,000 SYN committed to deploy into the pool
- Term Duration: 6 months for the DAO incentive commitment
- Native Token Listing Fees: No native-token listing fee disclosed
Blockworks note: The public governance record identifies a DEX liquidity incentive proposal for a SYN-FRAX pool. No filing-grade centralized exchange listing schedule or native-token listing fee arrangement has been disclosed in the verified public record.
SYN is currently listed on Binance, Kraken, Coinbase, KuCoin, Gate.io, and additional exchanges; however, none of those listing agreements have been disclosed in the public governance record with native-token terms.
(Source: SIP-10 A New SYN-FRAX Liquidity Pool, CoinGecko — SYN)
Financial Disclosures & Risks
Prior Token Sales & Fundraising
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
- (b) Early-Stage Investment Instrument used (i.e. SAFT, STAMP, SAFE, SAFE+Token Warrant, etc.)
- (c) Date of sale (at least month & year)
- (d) Number of tokens sold (or % of total supply)
- (e) Vesting schedule
If no prior sales occurred, state that explicitly (e.g., "No prior fundraising, OTC, or discounted MM sales have occurred.").
Blockworks note: SYN launched exclusively through the genesis airdrop to NRV holders and prior liquidity providers. No public ICO, SAFT, STAMP, SAFE, or equivalent primary token sale has been identified in the verified public record. The project is identified in public sources as having raised $2 million (PitchBook), with known investors including Three Arrows Capital, CMS Holdings, Alameda Research, Immutable Capital, Primitive Ventures, DeFiance Capital, Mechanism Capital, AG Build, and FJ Labs. These appear to have been equity or token arrangements made at the Nerve Finance stage prior to the SYN rebrand.
(Source: CoinMarketCap — Synapse, PitchBook — Synapse Protocol, Uphold — SYN)
Previous Exploits Affecting The Native Token
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").
- (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) — References (optional): link(s) to post-mortem/advisory/PR.
(a) Date & component affected
2021-11-06; Avalanche nUSD Metapool AMM contract, affecting liquidity providers across six chains.
(b) Exploit vector summary
An attacker exploited a bug in the Saddle Finance-forked Metapool implementation used by the Synapse AMM. The bug, found in line 424 of MetaSwapUtils.sol, allowed the attacker to loop through transactions continuously — calling swap() and removeLiquidityOneToken() repeatedly — lowering the Metapool virtual price by approximately 12.5% and draining value from liquidity providers. The attacker then attempted to bridge approximately $8.2 million in nUSD to the destination chain via the Synapse Bridge.
(c) Quantified impact
The attacker did not successfully extract funds. Synapse validators, by consensus, elected not to process the bridge transaction that would have minted approximately $8.2 million in nUSD to the attacker's address on the destination chain. The attacker's funds remained locked in the bridge. All affected Avalanche nUSD LPs were made whole; no funds were permanently lost.
(d) Remediation/response taken
Synapse paused the AMM and bridge across all six chains within 16 hours of the first LP report. Contributors identified the bug, coordinated with Saddle Finance, and redeployed nUSD pools using a standard four-asset Stableswap contract rather than the Metapool implementation. A snapshot of all affected Avalanche LP addresses and balances was taken. The redeployed pools went live on November 7, 2021 and normal bridge operations resumed. Synapse committed to ongoing multi-firm code audits following the incident.
(e) Current status
Resolved. No funds lost. All Avalanche nUSD LPs were reimbursed in full.
(f) References (optional)
(Source: Synapse Protocol Post-Mortem — Medium, CoinTelegraph — Synapse Bridge Prevents $8M Hack, Halborn — Explained: The Synapse and Nerve Bridge Hacks)
Material Risk Factors (Regulation, Technology, Token Economics)
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?
(a) Regulatory, Legal & Tax Risks
The Synapse Explorer Terms of Service (last updated February 2023) identify Interoperability Inc. as the interface operator. The site is described as non-custodial and not registered with FinCEN or any other regulatory body, and it does not provide brokerage, execution, settlement, or investment advice. Users must comply with applicable law, and access is restricted for sanctioned persons and residents of comprehensively sanctioned jurisdictions. The terms place responsibility for legal compliance and investment suitability on users, not on the interface operator. As of SIP-43 in April 2025, the Synapse DAO has transitioned governance and IP to the Cortex DAO, a change that may affect the legal characterization of SYN in various jurisdictions and create uncertainty around the regulatory treatment of the migration from SYN to CX tokens. Evolving or conflicting digital-asset laws in the United States and other key jurisdictions could affect the ability to maintain token listings on trading venues, change the treatment of SYN as a security or commodity, or impose licensing requirements on core entities. Tokenholders are responsible for understanding their own tax obligations under applicable law in their jurisdiction of residence.
(Source: Synapse Explorer Terms, Synapse Explorer Privacy Policy)
(b) Protocol, Technology & Security Risks
Synapse uses an optimistic security model for cross-chain messages, in which Agents, Notaries, and Guards post SYN bonds and dishonest actors face slashing. That design leaves material risk that bugs, invalid attestations, flawed fraud-proof flows, incorrect contract behavior, or failures in agent operation could disrupt bridging, settlement, rewards management, or treasury actions across supported chains. The AMM contract surface was exploited in November 2021 via a Saddle-forked Metapool bug, an incident that demonstrated realistic risk from third-party code dependencies. The Zellic security assessment of the Synapse Intent Network (completed March 2025) identified one high-severity reentrancy risk, two medium-severity issues, and one low-severity issue. Synapse implemented a fix for the high-severity finding. Vulnerability reports are handled privately through Synapse Labs via Discord and Telegram. Ongoing audits are funded through the Synapse Labs grant; those audits may improve response and review processes but do not eliminate implementation, RFQ, or contract-surface risk. The large bridge and messaging contract surface spanning more than fifteen chains increases the attack surface materially relative to single-chain protocols.
(Source: Synapse Landing, Interchain Future, Synapse Contracts Docs, Sanguine Repository, Security Policy, Grant to Synapse Labs, Messari — Synapse)
(c) Token Economics, Unlocks & Incentive Risks
Synapse's token economics depend on continued bridge usage, DAO-managed emissions, liquidity incentives, and, in newer proposals, staking-backed security, ETH-paid tips, and buyback-and-burn mechanics tied to network usage. If bridge volume declines or incentive assumptions fail, the token's utility, treasury flexibility, market liquidity, and ability to support network participation weaken proportionally. The DAO can alter monetary policy, emissions parameters, treasury deployment, staking design, and the token supply cap by governance vote. A 2024 proposal to remove the 250,000,000 token supply cap and a later SIP-43 migration of governance to the Cortex DAO illustrate the breadth of changes governance can impose on tokenholders without individual consent. The indefinite interchangeability of SYN and CX tokens at 1:5.5 creates additional market structure complexity, including potential arbitrage-driven selling pressure on SYN as holders convert. Investors in Three Arrows Capital, Alameda Research, and other distressed entities that held SYN may have sold or may continue to sell holdings through liquidation processes, creating additional supply-side risk.
(Source: SYN 2.0 — Major Protocol Upgrade Preparation, Interchain Future, Revised Proposal: Enhancing $SYN Utility through Network Security and Staking, SYN Buyback Proposal, $5M Protocol Owned Liquidity RFQ Relayer, Synapse Emissions Reduction, Kraken Canada — SYN Crypto Asset Statement, Messari — Synapse)
This Token Transparency Filing is provided for general informational purposes only and does not verify or warrant the accuracy of individual answers.
