Synthetix
DeFi · Decentralized ExchangeToken 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
Synthetix addresses the absence of a high-performance, noncustodial perpetual futures exchange on Ethereum Mainnet. Prior to its current architecture, onchain perps trading was fragmented across L2 chains, creating liquidity inefficiencies and a degraded user experience relative to centralized venues. The protocol's current design delivers offchain order matching with onchain batch settlement and permissionless withdrawals, targeting parity with centralized exchange performance while preserving the security guarantees of Ethereum L1.
(Source: Synthetix Mainnet Docs, 2026 Roadmap)
(b) Operational priorities
Current operational priorities, as stated in the March 2026 roadmap, are scaling Synthetix Perps on Ethereum Mainnet into a competitive perpetual futures venue, executing a structured buyback program for SNX and sUSD using 100% of protocol fee revenue, restoring the sUSD peg, and operating protocol-owned liquidity through the Synthetix Liquidity Provider vault. The governance structure established under SR-2 — a single seven-seat Spartan Council — directs all strategic and treasury decisions. The 2025 execution year also included the acquisitions of Kwenta and TLX and the consolidation of product development under a unified Synthetix Exchange.
(Source: 2026 Roadmap, SR-2 Reboot, Q2 2026 Roadmap Update)
(c) High-level project overview
Synthetix operates as a decentralized perpetual futures exchange on Ethereum Mainnet using offchain order matching with onchain batch settlement. User funds are custodied on L1 and onchain withdrawals remain permissionless. Users trade leveraged positions without surrendering custody of their funds. The Synthetix Liquidity Provider vault accepts sUSD deposits to backstop perps trading, with depositors earning a share of spread and liquidation fees. The Treasury Market dynamically mints, burns, and deploys sUSD to maintain the peg and support trading liquidity.
(Source: Synthetix Docs, 2026 Roadmap)
(d) Primary token functions
SNX is the governance and utility token of the protocol. Staking SNX provides governance participation rights in Spartan Council elections. Under the 420 Pool introduced via SIP-420, stakers deposit SNX into a protocol-managed pool that mints sUSD at a 200% collateralization ratio, forgives individual staker debt over a 12-month Debt Jubilee window, and eliminates the manual debt-management obligations of the prior staking model. SNX inflation ended in December 2023 under SIP-2043; stakers now earn rewards in the form of trading fees. The 2026 roadmap commits all protocol fee revenue to buybacks of SNX and sUSD, creating deflationary supply mechanics once the sUSD peg is restored.
(Source: SIP-2043, SNX Token Docs, 2026 Roadmap)
(e) Control surface reliance
Synthetix is governed by a single seven-seat Spartan Council, established via Referendum SR-2 ratified in October 2024. Four of the seven seats are elected by SNX stakers every six months; the remaining three seats (Strategy, Technical, and Ops) are appointed Core Contributor roles. All governance proposals (SIPs, SCCPs, STPs) and treasury transactions require a 4/7 approval threshold. Voting power is proportional to staked SNX. The protocol previously operated under a multi-council structure (Spartan, Treasury, and Ambassador Councils totaling 17 seats) and before that under a protocolDAO with contract-upgrade and pause authority and tokenholder override mechanisms. The original Synthetix Foundation, a not-for-profit Australian entity, was wound down as of June 30, 2020, and its governance responsibilities migrated to onchain DAO structures. A new foundation entity was announced as part of SR-2 but has not been formally established as of the sources reviewed for this filing.
(Source: Governance Docs, SR-2, Foundation Decommissioned, January 2026 Elections)
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
No standalone Labs/DevCo legal entity with a publicly named leadership roster has been identified in public sources as of this filing. Operational functions are managed by Core Contributors reporting to the Spartan Council. | Labs | ||
The original Synthetix Foundation (Havven Foundation) was wound down as of June 30, 2020. SR-2, ratified in October 2024, announced that a new foundation entity "will be established" to handle contract signing, KYC/AML engagement, and receipt of partner incentives. That new foundation had not been formally established and publicly named as of the sources reviewed for this filing. | Foundation | ||
Kain Warwick | DAO | Advisory Seat | Co-founder of Synthetix (originally Havven); founder of Infinex. |
Jordan Momtazi | DAO | Advisory Seat | Co-founder of Synthetix with commercial and BD experience; connected to Bodhi Ventures. |
Benjamin Celermajer (Fenway) | DAO | Strategy Seat | Background in asset management, strategy design, and complex business transformations. |
Cavalier (Cav) | DAO | Core Contributor Seat (CC Lead) | Core Contributor at Synthetix for three years, including prior service on the Spartan Council and Treasury Council before becoming CC Lead. |
Brent | DAO | Technical Seat | No public prior-experience description identified in cited sources. |
coKaiynne | DAO | Treasury Seat | Elected to the Treasury Council at the start of 2024; re-elected into the Treasury seat under SR-2. |
MasterMojo | DAO | Advisory Seat | No public prior-experience description identified in cited sources. |
Blockworks note: (Source: Foundation Decommissioned, SR-2 Reboot, Governance Docs) |
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 of IP ownership or control assignments between the DAO, any foundation entity, or individual contributors has been identified in cited sources.
(b) Contract/admin powers
The Spartan Council, as constituted under SR-2, holds authority over all SIPs, SCCPs, STPs, and treasury transactions, each requiring a 4/7 approval threshold. The Council operates a multisig for treasury actions. Historically, the protocolDAO operated a 4/8 multisig that could modify and upgrade all Synthetix contracts, pause individual synths or the full system, and was subject to a tokenholder override mechanism with time-locked upgrade review. Under SR-2, those protocolDAO-era functions were collapsed into the unified Spartan Council structure.
(Source: Governance Docs, Foundation Decommissioned)
(c) Locked-token rights (conditional)
SNX stakers in the 420 Pool hold voting power in Spartan Council elections proportional to their staked SNX balance. The January 2026 election cycle restricted voting to SNX stakers in the 420 pool. Staked SNX also entitles holders to a share of protocol trading fees. Stakers do not retain individual control over debt positions under the 420 Pool model, as sUSD minting and debt management are handled at the protocol level.
(Source: Governance Docs, SNX Token Docs)
(d) Value accrual & holder rights
No formal governance-approved or contractual description of tokenholder rights over revenue distribution or treasury assets has been identified in the public sources reviewed for this filing. The 2026 roadmap states that all protocol fee revenue is directed to SNX and sUSD buybacks, but the governing resolution or SIP formalizing that mechanism has not been independently confirmed in the sources reviewed.
(e) Dissolution authority
No public disclosure of dissolution authority or wind-up mechanisms for the Synthetix DAO has been identified in cited sources.
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
Havven Foundation, not-for-profit public company limited by guarantee, incorporated in Australia. Decommissioned June 30, 2020.
(Source: Havven Foundation Announcement, Foundation Decommissioned)
(b) IP ownership & control
No public disclosure of IP ownership, powers over DAO or treasury, powers over DevCo, contract/admin powers, or economic arrangements for the Havven Foundation beyond its token allocation and vesting schedule has been identified in the public sources reviewed for this filing.
(c) Powers over DAO, treasury, protocol-controlled resources, and token administration
No public disclosure of IP ownership, powers over DAO or treasury, powers over DevCo, contract/admin powers, or economic arrangements for the Havven Foundation beyond its token allocation and vesting schedule has been identified in the public sources reviewed for this filing.
(d) Powers over DevCo
No public disclosure of IP ownership, powers over DAO or treasury, powers over DevCo, contract/admin powers, or economic arrangements for the Havven Foundation beyond its token allocation and vesting schedule has been identified in the public sources reviewed for this filing.
(e) Contract/admin powers
No public disclosure of IP ownership, powers over DAO or treasury, powers over DevCo, contract/admin powers, or economic arrangements for the Havven Foundation beyond its token allocation and vesting schedule has been identified in the public sources reviewed for this filing.
(f) Current economic arrangements and distribution policies
No public disclosure of IP ownership, powers over DAO or treasury, powers over DevCo, contract/admin powers, or economic arrangements for the Havven Foundation beyond its token allocation and vesting schedule has been identified in the public sources reviewed for this filing.
Blockworks note: The Havven Foundation was the primary foundation entity directly involved in the original token launch. It was a not-for-profit public company limited by guarantee, domiciled in Australia, with Kain Warwick, Alan Burt, and Jordan Momtazi as initial directors. The foundation controlled 12,000,000 HAV tokens — 12% of the 100,000,000 total launch supply — subject to a two-year escrow with quarterly vesting. The foundation's stated mandate was to form the initial collateral pool during protocol rollout. The process of winding down the Havven/Synthetix Foundation commenced as of June 30, 2020, and the foundation was formally decommissioned at that time. Its SNX holdings were expected to transfer to the synthetixDAO treasury.
A new foundation entity was announced as part of SR-2 in October 2024 but has not been formally established or publicly named as of the sources reviewed for this filing. Items (a) through (f) below therefore apply only to the now-decommissioned Havven Foundation as the primary entity at token launch; no operating successor foundation currently exists.
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 public disclosure identifies a separate primary DevCo directly involved in the original Havven token issuance. The Havven Foundation served as the issuing entity. Protocol development since the foundation's 2020 decommissioning has been conducted by Core Contributors funded through the synthetixDAO treasury and, under the SR-2 structure, reporting to the Spartan Council. No legal entity operating as a DevCo with named officers, jurisdiction of incorporation, or formal relationship to the protocol has been publicly identified in the sources reviewed for this filing.
(Source: Havven Foundation Announcement, Foundation Decommissioned, SR-2 Reboot)
(b) IP ownership & control
No public disclosure identifies a separate primary DevCo directly involved in the original Havven token issuance.
(c) Powers over DAO, treasury, protocol-controlled resources, and token administration
No public disclosure identifies a separate primary DevCo directly involved in the original Havven token issuance.
(d) Powers over Foundation
No public disclosure identifies a separate primary DevCo directly involved in the original Havven token issuance.
(e) Contract/admin powers
No public disclosure identifies a separate primary DevCo directly involved in the original Havven token issuance.
(f) Current economic arrangements and distribution policies
No public disclosure identifies a separate primary DevCo directly involved in the original Havven token issuance.
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
The Havven launch supply was fixed at 100,000,000 HAV tokens. Of that total, 60,000,000 were made available during the public token sale, 12,000,000 were allocated to the Havven Foundation (locked), and 20,000,000 were allocated to core contributors and advisors (locked). 2,000,000 were distributed via airdrop. The remaining approximately 6,000,000 tokens are not fully accounted for in the public launch materials reviewed.
(Source: Havven FAQ, Havven Foundation Announcement, Token Sale Review)
(b) Recipient categories & use of funds
Public EOI sale and main token sale — 60,000,000 HAV available for public purchasers to acquire the collateral token for the synthetic asset protocol. Strategic allocation — Commitment to purchase USD 15 million before the EOI closed, conditioned on the strategic buyer delivering at least three strategic partners to the protocol. Havven Foundation — 12,000,000 HAV (12% of supply) controlled by the foundation to form the initial collateral pool during protocol rollout. Core contributor and advisory allocation — 20,000,000 HAV allocated to the team and advisors who built and launched the protocol. Havven airdrop — 2,000,000 HAV distributed to participants who completed the airdrop process during the launch window.
(Source: Havven FAQ, Havven Foundation Announcement, Token Sale Review, Sale Details)
(c) Initial price per token (if applicable)
The launch did not use a single fixed offering price. The seed round cleared at a realized price of USD 0.27 (60% discount). The EOI sale cleared at a realized price of USD 0.47. Main-sale purchasers choosing no escrow paid USD 0.67 per token. Discounted escrow tranches cleared at intermediate prices corresponding to the applicable discount tier (5%, 10%, 15%, or 20% below the no-discount price). The strategic allocation was provided at the same 30% discount applied to the EOI allocation.
(Source: Token Sale Review, Sale Details)
(d) Ticker / market symbol
HAV at launch (Havven). Rebranded to SNX (Synthetix Network Token) following the protocol's rename from Havven to Synthetix in late 2018.
(Source: Havven FAQ, Core Contributor Escrow)
(e) Total supply & supply regime
The launch supply was fixed at 100,000,000 HAV. SNX inflation was introduced in 2019 to incentivize staking. Inflationary rewards were voted on multiple occasions to reduce the issuance rate. SIP-2043 passed in the first week of December 2023, reducing SNX inflation to zero effective in the claim week following the vote. As of that date, no new SNX has been minted through inflation. The current circulating supply is approximately 344–345 million SNX, reflecting the cumulative inflation issued between 2019 and December 2023. The Spartan Council retains the on-chain authority to mint additional SNX if approved by governance. The 2026 roadmap commits all protocol fee revenue to SNX buybacks, creating deflationary mechanics. There is no hard-coded maximum supply.
(Source: SIP-2043, SNX Token Docs, CoinDesk Supply Data, 2026 Roadmap)
(f) Initial vesting / release schedules
EOI sale purchasers — 12-month escrow; 25% released every 3 months. Main-sale purchasers (discounted) — Purchasers chose 18, 12, 6, or 3-month escrow corresponding to 20%, 15%, 10%, or 5% discounts. Main-sale purchasers (no discount) — No escrow. Strategic allocation — No lockup, conditioned on delivery of at least three strategic partners. Havven Foundation — Two-year escrow with quarterly vesting. Core contributor and advisory allocation — Two years with quarterly unlocks. Havven airdrop — Distributed within one week of the conclusion of the token sale. No ongoing vesting.
The 2026 roadmap states that all VC holdings, ecosystem fund allocations, and team unlocks have fully cleared, with no remaining supply overhang as of that publication.
(Source: Sale Details, Havven Foundation Announcement, Core Contributor Escrow, Airdrop Guide, 2026 Roadmap)
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. Synthetix, then operating as Havven, completed its TGE and executed its launch-era airdrop in February 2018. No pending or unexecuted initial TGE airdrop exists for which a forward-looking recipient wallet list commitment would apply.
-
Executed airdrop: Synthetix, then operating as Havven, conducted a single launch-era airdrop running February 4–14, 2018, distributing a total of 2,000,000 HAV tokens.
Covered user segments: Open participation. Any individual who joined the Havven Telegram group and submitted the required identity and wallet details during the participation window was eligible. No product-usage, holding, or onchain activity criterion was required.
Allocation method: The standard per-user amount was allocated pro rata across all participants who completed the required steps. Each successful referral added a 100% bonus on the standard allocation, capped at 20 referrals per participant.
Per-address source: None. No per-address CSV, Merkle dump, Dune table, GitHub repository embedding allocations, or RPC endpoint exposing claim/amount data has been identified in the public sources reviewed for this filing.
Sources: Havven FAQ, Airdrop Guide
-
No airdrop planned or conducted: Not applicable. Synthetix has conducted an airdrop, as described in (b).
Blockworks note: Sub-item (b) discloses covered segments, the participation window, the aggregate distribution size, and the full allocation mechanics including the referral multiplier and its cap. The gap is limited to the per-address source.
This distribution predates the Havven-to-Synthetix rebrand and the migration from HAV to SNX. Allocation records, if retained, would sit against the HAV contract rather than the current SNX contract, which affects what a per-address remedy would look like.
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.
Blockworks note: In March 2023, DWF Labs purchased USD 15 million worth of SNX directly from the Synthetix treasury on March 14–16, 2023, with a further USD 5 million purchase announced to follow, for a total commitment of USD 20 million. Onchain data published by Nansen showed that DWF Labs transferred 5.3 million SNX received from the Synthetix treasury wallet to Binance between March 16–20, 2023. DWF Labs described the transaction publicly as a strategic investment. Synthetix founder Kain Warwick subsequently stated in March 2025 that DWF Labs operated Synthetix using a method of buying tokens from the treasury to pump the price and then dumping to cash out. The material terms of any formal market-making agreement between Synthetix and DWF Labs — including token allocation as a percentage of supply, contract duration, and the specific financial structure (loan, option, retainer) of any market-making arrangement separate from or alongside the token purchase — have not been publicly disclosed by either party.
(Source: CoinDesk DWF Investment, Yahoo Finance DWF Investigation, ChainCatcher Warwick Statement)
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.
Blockworks note: No public disclosure of formal exchange listing agreements — including token allocations committed for listings, term durations, or native-token listing fees paid to any CEX or DEX — has been identified in the public sources reviewed for this filing.
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.").
- Series Name: Seed round (pre-ICO, undisclosed instrument)
- Date Of Sale: August–September 2017
- Number of tokens sold: Exact token count not publicly identified; tranche received a 60% discount and cleared at USD 0.27 per token
- Vesting Schedule: No public vesting schedule identified
- Series Name: Strategic allocation (pre-EOI, undisclosed instrument)
- Date Of Sale: Before EOI closed, February 2018
- Number of tokens sold: Commitment to purchase USD 15 million; exact token count not publicly identified in cited sources
- Vesting Schedule: No lockup, conditioned on delivery of at least three strategic partners
- Series Name: EOI public token sale (direct token purchase)
- Date Of Sale: February 26–27, 2018
- Number of tokens sold: USD 26 million raised; exact token count sold in EOI tranche not separately identified in public sources (60,000,000 HAV were available across EOI and main sale combined)
- Vesting Schedule: 12-month escrow; 25% released every 3 months
- Series Name: Main public token sale (direct token purchase)
- Date Of Sale: February 28 – March 6, 2018 (or earlier if cap reached)
- Number of tokens sold: USD 4 million raised; individual purchases capped at BTC/ETH equivalent of USD 5,000; exact tranche count not separately identified
- Vesting Schedule: Purchasers chose 18, 12, 6, or 3-month escrow with corresponding discounts, or no escrow
- Series Name: Framework Ventures treasury token sale
- Date Of Sale: October 29, 2019
- Number of tokens sold: 5,000,000 SNX purchased from the Synthetix Foundation treasury at approximately USD 0.76 per token (USD 3.8 million total)
- Vesting Schedule: Up to 24-month escrow; Framework committed to staking during the escrow period
- Series Name: Coinbase Ventures, Paradigm, IOSG Ventures treasury token sale
- Date Of Sale: December 2020 (announced February 14, 2021)
- Number of tokens sold: Tokens purchased directly from synthetixDAO treasury; exact per-investor token counts not publicly disclosed; USD 12 million total
- Vesting Schedule: No public vesting or lockup terms disclosed
- Series Name: DWF Labs treasury token purchase
- Date Of Sale: March 14–20, 2023
- Number of tokens sold: USD 20 million total; 5.3 million SNX transferred onchain per Nansen data
- Vesting Schedule: No public lockup or vesting terms disclosed
Blockworks note: Synthetix (originally Havven) conducted its initial token sale in February–March 2018 and has completed four subsequent post-launch fundraising transactions through treasury token sales. The 2026 roadmap states that all VC holdings, ecosystem funds, and team unlocks have fully cleared as of that publication.
The printed table combined Series Name and Investment Vehicle into a single column; the combined values are recorded under series_name.
(Source: Token Sale Review, Sale Details, Framework Blog, The Block Framework, CoinDesk Paradigm Round, CoinDesk DWF, 2026 Roadmap)
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
Incident 1: 2019-06-25, FX oracle / sKRW pricing. Incident 2: 2021-01-11, multi-collateral loans release.
(b) Exploit vector summary
Incident 1: A KRW price feed error caused one API to report a value 1,000x higher than the actual rate, allowing a trading bot to exploit sKRW pricing during the bad-data window. Incident 2: A logic bug caused certain loans to be flagged for total liquidation when only partial liquidation was required, exposing affected positions to incorrect liquidation risk.
(c) Quantified impact
Incident 1: The bot generated trades with 1,000x profits, producing over USD 1 billion in nominal profit in under an hour before reversal negotiations. No net loss was realized after reversal. Incident 2: No quantified realized dollar loss was disclosed in the public post. Certain positions faced incorrect liquidation risk during the window before the pDAO paused the system.
(d) Remediation/response taken
Incident 1: The CTO halted the oracle service, pausing transfers and trading. The bot operator agreed to reverse all trades in exchange for a bug bounty. Synthetix added oracle redundancy and stronger exception handling. Under SIP-36, the protocol later migrated remaining price oracles to Chainlink. Incident 2: The pDAO paused opening of new positions. All open positions were safely closed. New contracts were committed to be deployed in the next Castor release.
(e) Current status
Incident 1: Resolved. Trades reversed; remediation implemented; oracle infrastructure upgraded. Incident 2: Resolved. Disclosed as mitigated pending redeployment; Castor release subsequently deployed.
(f) References (optional)
Incident 1: Oracle Incident Post-Mortem Incident 2: Bug Disclosure Post
(Source: Oracle Incident, Loans Bug, Chainlink Migration SIP-36)
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 original Havven token sale required KYC/AML verification from purchasers, and Chinese citizens were identified in launch-era materials as a specifically restricted group. More recent governance materials (SR-2) describe an intended future foundation as the entity that will handle activities requiring a signing entity for partner contracts and KYC/AML engagement, indicating that legal and compliance constraints continue to affect counterparty-facing operations. The operator of the current Synthetix services is identified in the website's legal materials as Molon Labe Inc., a Panamanian corporation. Service use is subject to sanctions compliance, anti-money-laundering restrictions, and other applicable law per the published Exchange Terms. Tokenholders are expressly told in the Exchange Terms that no communication from Synthetix constitutes legal or tax advice; each tokenholder bears sole responsibility for determining their own tax obligations. Regulatory treatment of SNX as a security, commodity, or utility token remains unresolved across jurisdictions, and adverse determinations could affect listings, DAO operations, or the ability of the intended future foundation to operate.
(Source: Havven FAQ, Token Sale Review, SR-2 Reboot, Exchange Terms, Privacy Policy)
(b) Protocol, Technology & Security Risks
Synthetix's operation depends on oracle infrastructure and smart contract correctness. The June 2019 oracle incident demonstrated that a faulty price input could create outsized trading profits before intervention; the January 2021 multi-collateral loans bug demonstrated that smart contract logic errors could produce incorrect liquidation outcomes. Following SIP-36, Synthetix migrated its remaining price oracles to Chainlink to reduce centralized oracle dependence and improve manipulation resistance, but every trade on the protocol remains dependent on oracle-delivered prices. The current architecture pairs offchain order matching with onchain settlement, a deliberate design trade-off that introduces reliance on the offchain matching layer's availability and integrity. The sUSD stablecoin's persistent depeg through 2025 and into 2026 represents a realized risk event from protocol architecture changes, specifically the 420 Pool transition.
(Source: Oracle Incident, Loans Bug, Chainlink SIP-36, Synthetix Mainnet Docs, Rebuilding sUSD)
(c) Token Economics, Unlocks & Incentive Risks
The SNX supply has undergone three material regime changes: a fixed 100,000,000 HAV supply at launch, inflationary expansion from 2019 through December 2023, and a post-inflation model under SIP-2043. The current total supply of approximately 344–345 million SNX reflects cumulative inflation issued during that period. Inflation is now zero; the Spartan Council retains the governance authority to mint additional SNX. The 2026 roadmap commits all protocol fee revenue to SNX and sUSD buybacks, with 100% redirected to SNX buybacks once the sUSD peg is restored. That model creates a direct dependency between protocol trading volume, fee generation, and the economic value accruing to SNX holders. The 420 Pool shifts sUSD minting and debt management to the protocol level, which concentrates systemic sUSD risk in protocol-managed debt. The sUSD peg has experienced material instability following the SIP-420 transition, trading as low as USD 0.68 in April 2025 per public reporting. The protocol's public materials confirm that all VC, ecosystem fund, and team unlock supply overhangs have cleared as of early 2026.
(Source: SIP-2043, SNX Token Docs, 2026 Roadmap, Rebuilding sUSD, CoinDesk Supply)
This Token Transparency Filing is provided for general informational purposes only and does not verify or warrant the accuracy of individual answers.
