Question
Provide a narrative description of the purpose of the project.
Response
Umia is the full-stack platform for funding, governing, and scaling projects onchain. It exists because teams that want to build around a token have no adequate structure for it today: traditional startup financing is slow and sits offchain, a typical token launch hands the raised funds to wallets the team controls with no enforceable governance behind the token, and dual equity and token structures leave the relationship between the two unclear. Umia's purpose is to give a project a single framework designed around the token from day one: capital raised through an onchain Tailored Auction, funds that settle into a noncustodial treasury at the moment of sale, and board-level decisions made by tokenholders through decision markets and executed onchain.
UMIA is the first token launched through this system. It governs the protocol, its treasury, and its strategic direction, under the same legal wrapper, treasury constraints, and binding governance as every project launched after it.
Question
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 |
|---|---|---|
Francesco Mosterts | Co-founder and CEO | Formerly quant at Point72; co-founded Chainbound, a leading Ethereum R&D lab. Background in quantitative trading, DeFi infrastructure, and decentralized governance. |
Nicolas Racchi | Co-founder and CTO | Background in Ethereum infrastructure and distributed systems engineering for the past 3 years at Chainbound. Leads the development of the Umia protocol and platform. |
NFTBoi | Head of Growth | Background in private equity before moving into crypto, and strategy work with a Bitcoin-native DeFi protocol. Leads Umia's ecosystem voice and launch narrative; community figure with more than 100,000 followers on X. |
Oxytocin | Head of Ecosystem & GTM | Top-60 delegate in Optimism's Token House, with contributions across Velora (ParaSwap) and Arbitrum; specialised in governance systems. |
Ki Ageng Satria Pamungkas | Software Engineer | Specialised in zero-knowledge and sybil-resistant identity; develops the platform and the components related to zkTLS. |
Alessandro Villani | Operations | Background in token operations, tokenomics, and token design; previously at a token vesting and cap-table management platform and a Web3 strategy consultancy, with token engineering and DeFi work across both. |
Full Name | Official Title | Prior Experience |
|---|---|---|
No traditional foundation exists. Umia has no separate foundation entity and no foundation officers; the project's intellectual property, operating team, and treasury sit under a single entity, Umia, S.P., a segregated portfolio of Umia Launcher SPC. |
Full Name | Official Title | Prior Experience |
|---|---|---|
Does not exist. There is no DAO entity and no separate onchain-governance leadership. Governance is exercised directly by tokenholders through decision markets, with no privileged governance roles held by individuals. |
Question
Provide a structured description of the DAO's governance, powers, and economic rights. If a DAO does not exist, state so for each sub question. Even if there is no DAO, there must be an answer to (d). Address the lettered items below.
Response
No DAO exists, so no DAO owns or controls any intellectual property. The project's intellectual property, the protocol codebase and the Umia brand, is held by Umia, S.P., a segregated portfolio of Umia Launcher SPC; every token launched on the platform is likewise established as its own segregated portfolio under the same SPC.
No DAO exists, so no DAO holds any on-chain or administrative authority; governance authority is exercised by tokenholders through decision markets, with administrative powers held at the entity level rather than by any DAO.
UMIA holders govern the protocol through decision markets, and resolved outcomes bind the treasury contract. That covers treasury spending beyond the monthly operating allowance, token issuance and burning, the fee switch on spot and decision-market trading across the platform, the token allocations granted by admitted projects, and strategic direction. There is no committed buyback, burn, or distribution program, and UMIA carries no fixed entitlement to fees; any flow of treasury value to holders is itself a decision-market outcome.
The enduring model is decision markets executing onchain over the noncustodial treasury. During the early phase Umia retains temporary, publicly disclosed supervisory powers behind a platform-level owner role; these are progressively removed as the protocol matures, and their removal is itself decided through decision markets.
No DAO exists to dissolve. The project can be wound up through a decision market: a liquidation proposal, resolved like any other market and binding on Umia, S.P. through its constitutional documents, after which the treasury contract distributes the remaining assets to tokenholders pro-rata. No individual, team, or board can wind the project down unilaterally.
Question
For the Primary Foundation do the following independently. If a Foundation does not exist, state so for each sub question. Items (a)–(f) apply only if that entity exists; state explicitly that the entity doesn't exist.
Definition: The primary Foundation can be explained as the entity which was directly/indirectly involved in the issuance of the native token at launch. If the original Foundation has been dissolved and in its place a "new Foundation" was created, then detail the "new Foundation".
Response
Umia has no separate foundation; the entity in this role is Umia, S.P., a segregated portfolio of Umia Launcher SPC, a Segregated Portfolio Company incorporated in the Cayman Islands. Umia, S.P. does not itself issue UMIA: the token is minted at launch by the protocol's onchain contracts.
Umia, S.P. owns the project's intellectual property, the protocol codebase and the Umia brand, assigned to it under executed assignment agreements, with a non-exclusive license back to the development company, Chainbound, Inc.
No DAO exists, and Umia, S.P. holds no powers over DAO governance. Over treasury actions, its only discretionary power is the preset monthly operating allowance, drawn automatically within its budget; any change to it, or spending beyond it, requires a resolved decision market. It holds no powers over protocol-controlled resources: fees and revenue accrue to the noncustodial treasury and deploy only through decision markets. It holds no powers over token administration: issuance and burning execute only through the governance executor after a market resolves. It holds no powers over reward parameters, and no reward program exists. The temporary early-phase supervisory authorities are held by Umia, S.P. itself and exercised administratively through a platform-level owner role: proposal approval and proposal relaying are unilateral administrative actions taken through that role, not subject to any tokenholder vote, and the emergency veto is likewise unilateral but limited to pausing a single market pending investigation. Removal of all of these authorities is decided through decision markets. Market outcomes resolve by time-weighted average price against a no-action threshold and are legally enforceable under the entity's constitutional documents.
Umia, S.P. cannot exert direct influence over the decision-making of the development company: it holds no equity in Chainbound, Inc. and no power over its internal governance. Indirect influence arises through the contractual services relationship, under which the entity directs the services it engages.
Umia, S.P. holds no upgrade or governance-executor authority of its own. Pause authority: the token contract is pausable only through a resolved decision market, like any other treasury action; the entity's own pause power is limited to an emergency veto that suspends a single decision market pending investigation, exercised unilaterally through a platform-level owner role, and it cannot pause the token, the treasury, or the protocol. Upgrade authority: the protocol's core contracts are owner-gated behind a timelock with a two-day delay, with operations scheduled by a 3-of-6 team multisig. Governance-executor authority: execution of resolved markets is permissionless; outcomes resolve by time-weighted average price against a no-action threshold.
No dividend, buyback, or profit-distribution mechanism directs protocol resources to Umia, S.P. or its members. The mechanisms that route value are the preset monthly operating allowance, which funds registered team members for development and operations, and token allocations to the team, backers, and service providers, delivered through vesting contracts on fixed onchain schedules. Any broader distribution to tokenholders would itself be a decision-market outcome.
Question
For the Primary DevCo do the following independently. If an entity does not exist, state that explicitly across each sub-question. Items (a)–(f) apply only if that entity exists; state explicitly that the entity doesn't exist.
Definition: The primary DevCo can be explained as the entity which was directly/indirectly involved in the issuance of the native token at launch. If the original DevCo has been dissolved and in its place a "new DevCo" was created, then detail the "new DevCo".
Response
The Primary DevCo is Chainbound, Inc., a Delaware C-corporation with its principal place of business in New York. It is the research and development company that builds the Umia protocol, and Umia is one of its several business lines.
Chainbound, Inc. no longer owns the project's intellectual property: the protocol codebase and the Umia brand were assigned to Umia, S.P. under executed assignment agreements. Chainbound retains a non-exclusive license to the protocol technology, excluding the brand, under which it continues to develop and maintain the protocol.
Chainbound, Inc. holds no powers over DAO governance, treasury actions, protocol-controlled resources, token administration, or reward parameters; all of these are decided by tokenholders through decision markets.
Chainbound, Inc. cannot exert direct influence over the decision-making of Umia, S.P.: it holds no equity or management shares in the entity and no contractual right to direct it. Chainbound is engaged by the entity as an independent service provider, and Umia, S.P. retains ultimate authority over the protocol, token issuance, and compliance; any indirect influence is limited to that services relationship.
Chainbound, Inc. as a corporate entity holds no pause, upgrade, or governance-executor authority. The protocol's contract and admin authorities sit onchain with the timelock, the team multisig, and the permissionless governance executor, none of which is held or controlled by Chainbound.
No dividend, buyback, or profit-distribution program directs protocol resources to Chainbound, Inc. or its equityholders. Chainbound holds a fixed token allocation as a service provider, vesting over 36 months with a 12-month cliff and nothing unlocked at launch, and a share of the performance reserve released only on sustained price milestones. Any compensation beyond the monthly operating allowance requires decision-market approval, and equityholder token interests were committed through token purchase warrants exercisable at the token generation event.
Question
Definition (for this section): An Affiliated Protocol Contributor (APC) is a non-issuer company - not the protocol's primary Foundation or DevCo - that materially contributes to the protocol's code, operations, governance, or funding. For example, Blockworks Advisory would be considered an APC of Ethena because it materially contributes to its operations through Ethena's risk council.
Provide a structured description per APC. If no APCs exist, state that explicitly across each sub-question. Items below apply per APC.
Response
No Affiliated Protocol Contributors exist. External providers supply specific services to the project, such as MetaLeX's BORG legal-framework software used at formation, but no non-issuer company controls protocol parameters, holds contract or admin powers, or receives protocol-generated resources on an ongoing basis.
No Affiliated Protocol Contributors exist, so no external company controls any protocol parameter.
No Affiliated Protocol Contributors exist, so no external company holds pause or upgrade powers, governance-executor authority, or any other contract or administrative power over the protocol.
No Affiliated Protocol Contributors exist, and no protocol-generated resources or economic value is routed to any external company on an ongoing basis.
Response
Ticker | Date | Allocation Category Name | Recipient Type | Allocation % | Allocation Tokens | TGE Unlock % | TGE Unlock Tokens | Cliff Months | Cliff Unlock % | Linear Vesting Months | Cadence Months | Circulating Treatment | Notes on what each category is used for | If applicable: Contract / Wallet address |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
UMIA | 2026-09-02 | Token Sale | Public / Sale | 0.346 | 17300000 | 1 | 17300000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | No | Tokens sold in the public Tailored Auction, fully unlocked at TGE. | |
UMIA | 2026-09-02 | Backers | Private / VC | 0.203003 | 10150150 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 0.3333 | 24 | 1 | No | Pre-launch investor allocations. Vesting accrues monthly over 36 months from TGE with a 12-month cliff; the first year's accrual (one third) is released at the cliff (catch-up), then monthly thereafter. | |
UMIA | 2026-09-02 | Protocol treasury | Treasury | 0.061797 | 3089850 | 1 | 3089850 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Conditional | Noncustodial protocol treasury, live onchain at TGE. Deployable only through resolved decision markets, so marked Conditional; counted in the project's published day-one circulating figure. | |
UMIA | 2026-09-02 | Uniswap LP | Liquidity | 0.0692 | 3460000 | 1 | 3460000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | No | Protocol-owned liquidity for the Uniswap v4 UMIA/USDC pool on Base. | |
UMIA | 2026-09-02 | Team | Insiders | 0.05 | 2500000 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 0.3333 | 24 | 1 | No | Grants to current team members and a reserved pool for future team grants, 0% at TGE. Vesting accrues monthly over 36 months from TGE with a 12-month cliff; the first year's accrual (one third) is released at the cliff (catch-up), then monthly thereafter. | |
UMIA | 2026-09-02 | Service providers | Other | 0.06 | 3000000 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 0.3333 | 24 | 1 | No | Grants to contracted service providers, 0% at TGE. Vesting accrues monthly over 36 months from TGE with a 12-month cliff; the first year's accrual (one third) is released at the cliff (catch-up), then monthly thereafter. | |
UMIA | 2026-09-02 | Performance reserve | Insiders | 0.2 | 10000000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | No | Price-gated reserve, released only at sustained price milestones. No time-based schedule. | |
UMIA | 2026-09-02 | Incentives | Community | 0.01 | 500000 | 1 | 500000 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Conditional | Community incentive campaigns, unlocked at TGE and distributed through campaigns, so marked Conditional; counted in the project's published day-one circulating figure. |
Question
If there are no post-TGE token compensation plans, state explicitly they do not exist across each sub-question. If there are, explain each of (a)–(b) below.
Response
The current total locked attributable to post-TGE employees is 0.25% of total supply: a reserved pool of 125,000 UMIA held within the team allocation. None of it is yet allocated to any individual, as no post-TGE grants have been made.
The reserved pool is locked on the same schedule as the rest of the team allocation: vesting accrues monthly over 36 months from the token generation event, with a 12-month cliff at which the first year's accrual is released, then monthly release thereafter. Individual post-TGE grants are approved case by case.
Question
Disclose current token-based compensation for external advisors and service providers (e.g., legal, marketing, technical, growth) funded from the on-chain treasury. Do not disclose individual payments to advisors receiving fiat-only compensation. If there are no advisors contracted in tokens then state across each sub-question that no token-based advisory compensation exists.
Response
No token-based advisory compensation funded from the on-chain treasury exists. The treasury has made no token payments to advisors or service providers, and no such commitments are in place.
There is no token allocation to disclose; no advisory services are compensated in tokens from the on-chain treasury.
Not applicable: no token-based advisory compensation funded from the on-chain treasury exists, so there is no payer entity to identify.
Not applicable: there are no token-compensated advisory arrangements funded from the on-chain treasury to describe.
Question
Disclose ongoing KOL/influencer relationships that partially or fully received tokens for payment. You do not need to disclose KOL/influencers that do not receive tokens for payment. If no KOL engagements exist, state for each sub-question that no KOL engagements exist.
Response
No KOL or influencer has received tokens for payment to date.
Not applicable: no KOL or influencer has received token-based compensation, so there are no usernames or roles to list.
Not applicable: no tokens have been paid out under any KOL or influencer arrangement, so there are no amounts or vesting terms to summarize.
Question
For each wallet that holds Unissued Tokens or is essential to operations (e.g., foundation, operations, treasury, investor reserve), disclose:
Definition: Unissued Supply = tokens authorized by the contract but not yet issued to any party; where they sit (treasury or mint authority) does not change that they are unissued. For instance: if a token has a total supply cap of 1B, and 400M tokens have been issued to investors, the team, and users (whether vested or unlocked), then those 400M count as issued supply. The remaining 600M are authorized but unissued supply, even if they are already minted into a DAO treasury wallet.
Response
Title | Primary Function | Chain | Address | Control Mechanism | Explorer Link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Incentive campaigns wallet | Holds the community incentives allocation, distributed through incentive campaigns | Base | 0x959719Cd418659e4C2F25088021a411cE5251053 | Multisig (Safe) | |
Protocol treasury | Noncustodial protocol treasury holding the unissued treasury supply | Base | 0x57fbe5581A16bf5384e5195f3DD8c8A876f4FB05 | Noncustodial treasury contract, controlled by tokenholders through decision markets and the governance executor | |
Future team grants pool | Reserved pool for future team grants (unissued), held in a vesting contract | Base | 0x9f319BE3E3E4A54B7a31553B9394278d42b6998B | Vesting contract administered by the team multisig behind a timelock |
Question
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.
For each market maker, include in a table:
If no native tokens were loaned or allocated to market makers, state that explicitly; cash/fiat retainers or fees are not required for (b).
Response
Market Maker Name | Token Allocation Committed | Term Duration | Structure Name |
|---|---|---|---|
Umia has no agreements or deals with market makers. No native tokens have been loaned or allocated to any market maker, and no market-making arrangement of any kind is in place. Liquidity at launch is protocol-owned: the Uniswap v4 pool seeded by the protocol itself, with no third-party market-making involved. |
Question
Projects must disclose all material terms of centralized or decentralized exchange listings that affect token liquidity.
For each listing, include in a table:
If the project has no agreements or deals with CEX or DEX, state that explicitly; doing so earns full credit; cash/fiat fee amounts are not required for this item.
Response
Exchange Name | Token Allocation Committed | Term Duration | Native Token Listing Fees |
|---|---|---|---|
Umia has no agreements or deals with centralized or decentralized exchanges. No token allocation has been committed to any exchange for listing, and no listing fees have been paid in native tokens. At launch the token trades on a protocol-owned Uniswap v4 UMIA/USDC pool on Base, seeded by the protocol itself; a permissionless pool involves no agreement with any exchange. |
Question
If a category does not exist or is not applicable, make that clear in plain language.
Response
None. No token repurchases or secondary-market accumulations have occurred, and no repurchase or accumulation program exists.
The protocol's liquidity is a Uniswap v4 UMIA/USDC pool on Base, seeded by the protocol with 3,460,000 UMIA paired against 20% of the auction proceeds in USDC; the dollar size of the USDC side is therefore set by the auction outcome at settlement. The liquidity is protocol-owned: the LP position sits in the protocol's liquidity vault, whose shares are held in full by the venture's noncustodial treasury contract; any change to the deployment is a treasury action requiring a resolved decision market, and there is no unwind or exit other than through that same governance path.
None. No liquidity deals or purchased TVL arrangements exist, and no capital participates under any such deal.
None. No loans or credit lines are secured against issued or unissued tokens.
Question
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 Instrument | Date Of Sale | Number of tokens sold | Vesting Schedule |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Chainbound Pre-Seed | SAFE with token purchase warrant | March 2023 | 1,161,000 (2.322% of total supply) | 36 months from TGE with a 12-month cliff: 12/36 of the allocation unlocks at the first anniversary, then 1/36 monthly through month 36 |
Chainbound Seed | Preferred equity with token purchase warrant | April 2024 | 8,972,900 (17.9458% of total supply) | 36 months from TGE with a 12-month cliff: 12/36 of the allocation unlocks at the first anniversary, then 1/36 monthly through month 36 |
Chainbound Seed Extension | Preferred equity with token purchase warrant | February 2025 | 16,250 (0.0325% of total supply) | 36 months from TGE with a 12-month cliff: 12/36 of the allocation unlocks at the first anniversary, then 1/36 monthly through month 36 |
Question
Provide a narrative description of the Project's material funding sources, economic flows, and operational provisioning, broken out by entity: Foundation, Lab/DevCo, and DAO. If an entity does not exist, state that explicitly.
Response
Foundation: no traditional foundation exists; the entity in that role is Umia, S.P., a segregated portfolio of Umia Launcher SPC. Lab/DevCo: Chainbound, Inc. exists and serves as the development company. DAO: does not exist; governance is exercised directly by tokenholders through decision markets.
Foundation (Umia, S.P., the entity in that role): its operational funding is the preset monthly operating allowance drawn from the protocol's noncustodial treasury; the treasury itself is funded by the auction proceeds, which settle into it at the close of the sale, and by protocol fees as they accrue. Lab/DevCo: Chainbound, Inc. funds its operations from its own capital raised from its investors, from its other business lines, and from the services engagement with Umia, S.P., compensated within the protocol's monthly operating allowance; it also holds a fixed service-provider token allocation delivered through vesting. DAO: does not exist and has no funding.
Foundation (Umia, S.P., the entity in that role): the monthly operating allowance is a recurring budget set at the entity's formation, with named recipient addresses and purpose limits, drawn automatically with no proposal needed. It covers routine execution: compensation for the registered team, development work, go-to-market, and day-to-day operating costs including legal, compliance, and administration. Anything beyond it, including any change to team compensation packages, is a treasury action requiring a resolved decision market. Lab/DevCo: Chainbound, Inc. applies its resources to research and development, engineering, security, and operational support for the protocol and its other business lines. DAO: does not exist and uses no resources.
Foundation (Umia, S.P., the entity in that role) / the protocol: the primary public dashboard is the Umia project page on the Umia app, https://app.umia.finance/p/umia, which shows the treasury's onchain holdings and transactions, open and resolved decision markets, and the token's supply and vesting state. The token contract on Basescan, https://basescan.org/token/0x56ab53b77F07DA3af732150E8aeC4783eB5BbA7D, shows the token's total supply, holders, and transfers; the treasury contract on Basescan, https://basescan.org/address/0x57fbe5581A16bf5384e5195f3DD8c8A876f4FB05, shows the treasury's balances and transactions. The protocol is also tracked on DefiLlama, https://defillama.com/protocol/umia, which reports the protocol's total value locked across its launch contracts and its protocol-owned liquidity, with the measurement methodology stated on the page. No tokenholder-relations reports have been published to date. Lab/DevCo: Chainbound, Inc. is a private company; no public dashboard or tokenholder-relations report exists for it. DAO: does not exist.
Question
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 or security incidents affecting the token, its supply, tokenholder balances, the token contract, minting controls, burn mechanics, or custody of token supply have occurred as of 2026-08-26.
No prior incidents affecting the native token as of 2026-08-26: no exploit has occurred, so there is no vector to summarize.
No prior incidents affecting the native token as of 2026-08-26: no loss of funds has occurred, and no tokenholder assets or protocol funds have been affected.
No prior incidents affecting the native token as of 2026-08-26: no incident has occurred, so no remediation or response has been required or undertaken.
No prior incidents affecting the native token as of 2026-08-26: no incident exists to report a status for.
No prior incidents affecting the native token as of 2026-08-26: no post-mortem, advisory, or related material exists, as no incident has occurred.
Question
Provide a single income statement, expense summary, or comparable operating statement for the primary Foundation or Developer Company. A consolidated or entity-level presentation is acceptable. Balance Sheet and Statement of Cash Flows may be included but are not required. This item is intended to provide transparency into offchain operating resources and expenditures only.
Response
Question
Identify to the best of your ability the token's current deployments across chains, including project-issued deployments, project-endorsed representations, and, if possible, documented third-party wrapped or bridged representations.
For each entry, provide:
Multiple entries on the same chain are permitted.
Definition: A protocol-level asset is an asset whose balances and transfers are handled directly by the blockchain's core rules, rather than by a token smart contract. For protocol-level assets without a token contract address, enter "No contract address" and identify the asset and chain.
Response
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. Umia Finance is solely responsible for the content, accuracy, and legality of its disclosures.
