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
Berachain is a Layer 1 blockchain that runs Proof of Liquidity, a consensus design that extends Proof of Stake by routing block rewards to applications and liquidity providers rather than to validators alone. The design directs network emissions toward productive onchain liquidity so that capital securing the chain also deepens markets across the ecosystem. (Source: Proof-of-Liquidity Overview — Berachain, BERA Token — Berachain, Berachain — IQ.wiki)
(b) Operational priorities
The Berachain Foundation funds and directs ongoing development, ecosystem growth, developer tooling, liquidity provisioning, and incentive programs from the 100,000,000 BERA Ecosystem and R&D allocation. Governance stewards review Reward Vault whitelisting proposals weekly to expand emission-eligible applications across the network. (Source: BERA Token — Berachain, PoL Governance — Berachain, Reward Vault Requirements and Guidelines — Berachain)
(c) High-level project overview
Validators stake BERA to enter the active set of the top 69 validators by stake, and block-production probability is proportional to staked BERA. Each proposed block emits a fixed base rate of 0.4 WBERA to the validator operator and a reward rate of 1.305 WBERA routed through the BeraChef contract to governance-whitelisted Reward Vaults. Users stake Proof-of-Liquidity-eligible assets into those vaults to earn WBERA rewards. Transaction fees are paid in BERA and burned. Berachain launched with a three-token model of BERA for gas and staking, BGT as a non-transferable governance and rewards token, and HONEY as a native overcollateralized stablecoin. The July 2026 PoL Next hard fork consolidated the incentive layer around wrapped BERA, so WBERA is now the single emission token and staked WBERA (sWBERA) is the value-accrual layer. (Source: BERA Token — Berachain, Berachain retires BGT era with PoL Next — Invezz, Berachain Starts PoL Next Hard Fork — Cointelegraph)
(d) Primary token functions
BERA is the native gas and staking token of Berachain and, in its wrapped form WBERA, is the sole Proof-of-Liquidity emission token. Validators stake BERA to secure the network, users pay transaction fees in BERA, and those fees are burned. BGT is a soulbound, non-transferable token that historically carried governance and reward-direction rights and remains redeemable 1-to-1 for BERA. The PoL Next hard fork completed on 2026-07-08 ended BGT emissions and removed BGT's role in Proof of Liquidity, and holders are directed to migrate BGT and BGT liquid staking tokens into sWBERA through the Berachain Hub. HONEY is the network's native stablecoin. (Source: BERA Token — Berachain, BGT Token — Berachain, PoL Changelog — Berachain, Berachain Hard Fork Begins Shift to WBERA — Crypto Economy)
(e) Control surface reliance
Onchain governance operates through BGT-holder voting. Proposals stay live for 5 days, require a 20% quorum and at least 51% approval, and then enter a timelock window before execution. A Governance Guardian council acts through a 5-of-9 multisig and can veto proposals it deems malicious or materially detrimental during the timelock. The independent BGT Foundation coordinates governance and works with the Guardians on Reward Vault review. Reward Vault whitelisting requires a Request for Reward Vault form plus a governance-forum proposal, and stewards review submissions weekly. Following the 2026-07-08 PoL Next hard fork, published Berachain documentation still describes governance voting through BGT while the PoL changelog states BGT no longer has a user-facing role in Proof of Liquidity, so the governing token that carries voting power after migration to sWBERA is not definitively reconciled in public sources. (Source: PoL Governance — Berachain, Berachain Governance Update — Berachain Blog, Guardians Assemble — Berachain Blog, PoL Changelog — Berachain)
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.
Labs / DevCo
Full Name | Official Title | Prior Experience |
|---|---|---|
Smokey the Bera (pseudonymous) | Co-founder | Smokey the Bera studied engineering at the University of Waterloo, founded a healthcare and biotech company, worked as a seed and growth stage venture investor, has invested in cryptocurrency since 2015, and serves as a venture partner at Hack VC. |
Papa Bear (pseudonymous) | Co-founder | No individual prior-experience profile for Papa Bear appears in public sources. |
Homme Bera (pseudonymous, also referenced as Man Bera) | Co-founder and Director of the Berachain Foundation | No individual prior-experience profile for Homme Bera appears in public sources. |
Dev Bear (pseudonymous) | Co-founder | No individual prior-experience profile for Dev Bear appears in public sources. |
Jack Melnick | Head of DeFi | Jack Melnick served as Head of DeFi at Polygon Labs from January 2023 before joining Berachain in the same role. |
Foundation
Full Name | Official Title | Prior Experience |
|---|---|---|
Homme Bera (pseudonymous) | Director, Berachain Foundation | No individual prior-experience profile appears in public sources. |
Jonathan Ip | General Counsel, Berachain Foundation | No individual prior-experience profile appears in public sources. |
Joon Kim | Director, BGT Foundation | Joon Kim holds a JD from Cornell Law School, serves as director of the Celestia Foundation, previously served as General Counsel of several Layer 1 protocols including Terra, and worked as a Vice President at Goldman Sachs. |
Labs/DevCo note: The core development group operates as Big Bera Labs, the entity to which the initial core contributor allocation is assigned. (Source: Smokey Bera speaker profile — Consensus 2025, Smokey the Bera — IQ.wiki, Guardians Assemble — Berachain Blog, Jack Melnick joins Berachain — The Block, BERA Token — Berachain)
Foundation sources: (Source: Guardians Assemble — Berachain Blog, Brevan Howard refund right — The Block)
DAO/Onchain Governance: The Governance Guardian council ratifies Reward Vault proposals and can veto malicious governance proposals during the timelock through a 5-of-9 multisig. Named council members include Joon Kim, Director of the independent BGT Foundation, and Homme, Director of the Berachain Foundation. The full nine-member Guardian signer set is not disclosed by name in public sources. (Source: Guardians Assemble — Berachain Blog, PoL Governance — Berachain)
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 on-chain 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., on-chain vote threshold, board resolution of a legal wrapper).
(a) IP ownership & control
Public sources do not attribute ownership of Berachain codebases, repositories, or the Berachain trademarks to a DAO entity. The core protocol code is maintained by Big Bera Labs and the Berachain Foundation rather than by an onchain DAO. (Source: BERA Token — Berachain, Berachain by Berachain Labs — QuickNode)
(b) Contract/admin powers
Governance proposals require a proposer to hold or be delegated a minimum of 1,000 BGT of voting power. A proposal stays live for 5 days, needs a 20% quorum and at least 51% approval to succeed, and then enters a timelock queue before execution. During the timelock, the Governance Guardian council can cancel proposals it identifies as malicious, such as a hostile takeover or unauthorized code change, acting through a 5-of-9 multisig of elected signers. Reward Vault whitelisting is governance-controlled through the Request for Reward Vault process, and the BeraChef contract manages validator reward allocations and vault emission routing. (Source: PoL Governance — Berachain, Berachain Governance Update — Berachain Blog, Reward Vault Governance — Berachain)
(c) Locked-token rights (conditional)
BGT is soulbound to the address that earns it and grants governance voting and validator-boost rights while held. BGT holders can delegate voting power to validators and can redeem BGT 1-to-1 for BERA, and BERA cannot be converted back into BGT. The 2026-07-08 PoL Next hard fork ended BGT emissions and directs holders to migrate BGT and BGT liquid staking tokens into sWBERA through the Berachain Hub. (Source: BGT Token — Berachain, Honeypaper — Berachain, PoL Changelog — Berachain)
(d) Value accrual & holder rights
Under Proof of Liquidity, value accrues to participants who stake into the emission system rather than to passive holders. After the PoL Next hard fork, all incentives accrue to staked WBERA (sWBERA) holders, who receive WBERA-denominated yield from the incentive fee collector, and BERA captures value through fee burns and its role as the staked and emitted asset. Public sources do not describe a direct treasury revenue-distribution right vested in a broad tokenholder class. (Source: PoL Changelog — Berachain, BERA Token — Berachain)
(e) Dissolution authority
Public sources do not disclose a dissolution or wind-up mechanism for Berachain onchain governance or for the associated foundation entities. (Source: PoL Governance — Berachain, Berachain Governance Update — Berachain Blog)
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 Berachain Foundation is headquartered in George Town, Cayman Islands. It operates as the primary foundation that maintains the network's native applications and directs the Ecosystem and R&D allocation. Berachain also operates a separate independent entity, the BGT Foundation, which represents BGT-holder interests and coordinates governance. The specific registered legal-entity form of the Berachain Foundation, such as a Cayman foundation company, is not confirmed in a primary registry document within the public source set. (Source: Berachain company profile — Tracxn, Berachain company profile — PitchBook, Berachain Governance Update — Berachain Blog)
(b) IP ownership & control
The Berachain Foundation maintains the network's native, composable applications, including the BEX exchange, and develops BeaconKit, the modular consensus layer that powers the chain.A formal assignment of repository ownership, trademark registration, or code license to the Berachain Foundation is not documented in the public source set, and subsidiary entities are not enumerated. (Source: Berachain homepage — Berachain, Berachain by Berachain Labs — QuickNode)
(c) Powers over DAO, treasury, protocol-controlled resources, and token administration
The Berachain Foundation controls the Ecosystem and R&D allocation of 100,000,000 BERA and directs it toward ecosystem development, growth, developer programs, node operator delegations, and Proof-of-Liquidity evolution. The Foundation coordinates Reward Vault review together with the Guardians and the BGT Foundation. A filing-style map of the Foundation's specific thresholds over treasury actions, reward parameters, and token administration is not published in the public source set. (Source: BERA Token — Berachain, Berachain Governance Phase 1 — Berachain Blog)
(d) Powers over DevCo
Public sources do not describe the control relationship between the Berachain Foundation and Big Bera Labs. (Source: BERA Token — Berachain)
(e) Contract/admin powers
The Foundation participates in the Guardian veto process through the Governance Guardian council, which acts through a 5-of-9 multisig during the governance timelock. During the November 2025 BEX incident the Foundation exercised emergency contract controls to disable affected pool and vault contracts and pause HONEY mint and redeem operations. A Foundation-specific pause and upgrade authority map with named contract roles and thresholds is not published in the public source set. (Source: PoL Governance — Berachain, BEX Incident Post-Mortem — Berachain Foundation)
(f) Current economic arrangements and distribution policies
The Berachain Foundation is funded from the Ecosystem and R&D allocation of 100,000,000 BERA, which equals 20% of genesis supply and covers Foundation operations alongside ecosystem development. Of total supply, 9.5% from this allocation unlocked at launch for ecosystem growth, developer tooling, and liquidity provisioning. (Source: BERA Token — Berachain)
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
Big Bera Labs is the core contributor group that builds and maintains the Berachain protocol and receives the initial core contributor allocation. The registered legal-entity form and jurisdiction of Big Bera Labs are not disclosed in the public source set. (Source: BERA Token — Berachain, Berachain airdrop — KuCoin)
(b) IP ownership & control
Big Bera Labs is described as the primary developer of the Berachain blockchain. Formal repository ownership, trademark holdings, code licensing, and subsidiary entities of Big Bera Labs are not documented in the public source set. (Source: Berachain airdrop — KuCoin, What is Berachain — 99Bitcoins)
(c) Powers over DAO, treasury, protocol-controlled resources, and token administration
Public sources do not map specific powers held by Big Bera Labs over governance, treasury actions, protocol revenue, token administration, or reward parameters. (Source: BERA Token — Berachain, PoL Governance — Berachain)
(d) Powers over Foundation
Public sources do not describe whether Big Bera Labs can influence Berachain Foundation decision-making. (Source: BERA Token — Berachain)
(e) Contract/admin powers
A DevCo-specific pause, upgrade, or governance-executor authority map is not published in the public source set. (Source: BERA Token — Berachain)
(f) Current economic arrangements and distribution policies
Big Bera Labs receives the initial core contributor allocation of 84,000,000 BERA, which equals 16.8% of genesis supply and is assigned to advisors and members of Big Bera Labs. This allocation follows the common release schedule of a one-year cliff with no unlock before the cliff, a one-sixth unlock at the cliff, and 24 months of linear vesting for the remaining five-sixths. (Source: BERA Token — Berachain)
Token Supply & Allocations
Initial Allocation
Disclose launch and initial supply details in a single initial allocation schedule covering the token's launch. Include: (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).
Launch Supply Totals | Recipient Categories & Use of Funds | Initial Price per Token | Ticker / Market Symbol | Total Supply & Supply Regime | Initial Vesting / Release Schedules |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Genesis supply is 500,000,000 BERA. The launch distribution includes a 79,000,000 BERA airdrop allocation, and 9.5% of total supply from the Ecosystem and R&D bucket unlocked at launch for ecosystem growth, developer tooling, and liquidity provisioning. All remaining allocated parties follow the common vesting schedule. (Source: BERA Token — Berachain, Berachain Airdrop Overview — Berachain Blog) | Initial core contributors — 84,000,000 $BERA (16.8%). Assigned to advisors and members of Big Bera Labs, the core contributors to the Berachain blockchain. | Berachain set no fixed issuer offering price at the token generation event. BERA reached the open market through the genesis airdrop and simultaneous exchange listings at mainnet launch on 2025-02-06, and its trading price was set by open-market price discovery. For reference, the Series B tranche subscribed by Brevan Howard's Nova fund priced BERA at 3.00 US dollars per token in a March 2024 simple agreement for future tokens. (Source: BERA Token — Berachain, Berachain Begins BERA Airdrop as Mainnet Launches — Decrypt, Brevan Howard refund right — The Block) | The ticker is BERA. (Source: BERA Token — Berachain) | Genesis supply is 500,000,000 BERA and the supply is uncapped and inflationary. Block rewards mint new BERA emitted as WBERA, with each block producing a base rate of 0.4 WBERA to the validator operator and a reward rate of 1.305 WBERA routed to Reward Vaults, while transaction fees paid in BERA are burned. As of 2026-07-21, market aggregators report circulating supply of approximately 300,000,000 BERA and total supply of approximately 552,000,000 BERA. (Source: BERA Token — Berachain, Berachain — CoinGecko, Berachain — CoinMarketCap) | Initial core contributors and investors follow a common release schedule of a one-year cliff, no unlock before the cliff, a one-sixth unlock at the cliff, and 24 months of linear vesting for the remaining five-sixths. Of total supply, 9.5% from the Ecosystem and R&D bucket unlocked at launch. The Bong Bears and rebases airdrop tranche included 25,000,000 BERA unlocked at launch plus 9,500,000 BERA on the same one-year-cliff and 24-month linear-vesting pattern. (Source: BERA Token — Berachain, Berachain Airdrop Overview — Berachain Blog) |
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").
(b) Executed airdrop
(a) Per-address source
Berachain executed its genesis airdrop of 79,000,000 BERA at mainnet launch on 2025-02-06. No per-address CSV, JSON, Merkle dump, or comparable public recipient file for the executed airdrop appears in the public source set. (Source: Berachain Airdrop Overview — Berachain Blog, Berachain Begins BERA Airdrop as Mainnet Launches — Decrypt)
(b) Covered segments and allocation method
The airdrop covered testnet users on the Artio and bArtio testnets, Request for Brobosal recipients, Boyco participants, social airdrop recipients, ecosystem NFT holders, Binance HODLers, strategic partners, and Bong Bears NFT holders plus rebases. The allocation method was activity- and segment-based rather than a single flat distribution. Testnet-user rewards were based on interactions with native and ecosystem dApps and other unique Berachain activity. Request for Allocation recipients could direct up to 15% to protocol treasury use while committing at least 70% to mainnet initiatives, and the remainder rewarded testnet users through genesis-file submissions from ecosystem teams. Boyco rewards unlock after each market completes on a 30-day or 90-day schedule depending on market terms. (Source: Berachain Airdrop Overview — Berachain Blog, Berachain Begins BERA Airdrop as Mainnet Launches — Decrypt)
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.
No market maker name, native-token loan or allocation, agreement term, or agreement structure for BERA appears in the public source set. Berachain has not published a market maker disclosure, and the absence of a disclosure does not by itself confirm that no market maker arrangement exists.
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.
BERA trading went live at mainnet launch on 2025-02-06 across Binance, OKX, and Coinbase, and additional launch-day venues included Bitrue, KuCoin, Bybit, Bitget, MEXC, and BingX. First trading pairs included BERA/USDT, BERA/BTC, and BERA/BNB, and Binance featured BERA in its HODLer Airdrops program. (Source: Berachain Begins BERA Airdrop as Mainnet Launches — Decrypt, Berachain — Coinpedia)
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 | Investment Vehicle | Date Of Sale | Number of tokens sold | Vesting Schedule |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Seed round. Investment instrument not disclosed in public sources. | Early 2022 | Token quantity not disclosed in public sources. Part of the combined 171,500,000 BERA (34.3%) investor allocation. | One-year cliff, one-sixth unlock at cliff, then 24 months linear vesting, per the common investor schedule. | |
Series A, led by Polychain Capital at a 420,690,000 US dollar valuation, raised 42,000,000 US dollars. Instrument not disclosed. | April 2023 | Token quantity not disclosed in public sources. | One-year cliff, one-sixth unlock at cliff, then 24 months linear vesting, per the common investor schedule. | |
Series B, co-led by Framework Ventures and Brevan Howard Digital, raised 100,000,000 US dollars, structured as a SAFT. | H1 2024 (Nova Side Letter dated 2024-03-05) | Nova fund subscribed 25,000,000 US dollars at 3.00 US dollars per token. Total Series B token quantity not disclosed. | One-year cliff, one-sixth unlock at cliff, then 24 months linear vesting, per the common investor schedule. |
Berachain raised across three rounds that total 142,000,000 US dollars, and the aggregate investor allocation is 171,500,000 BERA, or 34.3% of genesis supply, covering Seed, Series A, and Series B investors. The Seed round closed in early 2022 with backers including dao5. The Series A raised 42,000,000 US dollars in April 2023, was led by Polychain Capital, and set a 420,690,000 US dollar valuation. The Series B raised 100,000,000 US dollars in the first half of 2024, was co-led by Framework Ventures and Brevan Howard Digital, and included Arrington Capital, Hack VC, Polychain, and Tribe Capital. Public documents show that the Series B used a simple agreement for future tokens, that Brevan Howard's Nova fund subscribed 25,000,000 US dollars of BERA at 3.00 US dollars per token, and that the Nova Side Letter dated 2024-03-05 granted Nova a refund right. (Source: Berachain Raises 42M Series A — CoinDesk, Brevan Howard refund right — The Block, Brevan Howard 25M refund right — Unchained, dao5 closes second fund after Berachain — Fortune)
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) — Link(s) to post-mortem/advisory/PR.
(a) Date & component affected
Incident 1: July 2025, the Berachain incentive claim contract.
Incident 2: 2025-11-03, the BEX exchange application, HONEY mint and redeem, bridges, and the chain, following an industry-wide exploit of Balancer v2.
(b) Exploit vector summary
Incident 1: Security researchers uncovered a backdoor deployed across multiple EVM chains that placed protocol funds at risk. Berachain's incentive claim contract was identified as exposed
Incident 2: An attacker deployed a copycat of the Balancer v2 exploit against BEX, a fork of Balancer v2, using a faulty access-control check that converted fake fees into real assets.
(c) Quantified impact
Incident 1: The Berachain Foundation stated that no user funds were at risk or lost.
Incident 2: Onchain monitors estimated roughly 128,000,000 US dollars drained across Balancer and its forks industry-wide. The Berachain Foundation stated that all funds from the incident on Berachain were returned and that no consensus-layer vulnerabilities were found.
(d) Remediation/response taken
Incident 1: The Foundation paused the incentive claim contract, transferred its funds to a new contract, and recreated the distribution merkles so incentives became claimable again within 24 hours.
Incident 2: The Foundation disabled affected BEX pool and vault contracts, paused HONEY mint and redeem, coordinated with validators to halt the chain, and executed an emergency hard fork that froze ERC20 transfers from exploiter addresses and routed recoverable assets to a Foundation recovery wallet.
(e) Current status
Incident 1: Resolved with no loss of funds.
Incident 2: Mitigated, funds returned, chain live, with permanent fixes and a full root-cause report in progress.
(f) References (optional)
Incident 1: (Source: Berachain company and incident profile — CB Insights)
Incident 2: (Source: BEX Incident Post-Mortem — Berachain Foundation, Berachain Halts Network to Contain Balancer-Linked Exploit — CoinDesk, Berachain emergency hard fork — The Block)
No incident directly affected the BERA native token contract, total supply, minting controls, burn mechanics, tokenholder BERA balances, or custody of BERA supply as of 2026-07-21. Two ecosystem-level incidents are disclosed below for completeness because they triggered network or contract-level responses, though neither compromised the BERA token itself.
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 Berachain Foundation states in its public terms that it is not registered or licensed by any regulatory agency or authority and that no regulatory agency or authority has reviewed or approved its site, platform, or services. The same terms state that the Foundation may restrict, suspend, or close wallet access for any reason or no reason, that it is not responsible for transferring or safeguarding private keys or wallet assets, and that it may modify the agreement through site notice or by updating the last-updated date. Tokenholders remain responsible for understanding and meeting their own tax obligations. Tokenholder-specific tax guidance and a formal jurisdictional access-restriction policy for BERA do not appear in the public source set. (Source: Bepolia Faucet Terms of Use — Berachain)
(b) Protocol, Technology & Security Risks
Berachain depends on validator staking, WBERA emission routing through BeraChef, Reward Vault whitelisting, and live smart-contract systems, so a contract-layer or operational failure can disrupt incentives, liquidity routing, and validator economics. The 2025-11-03 BEX incident demonstrated that an application-layer vulnerability in a native dApp can escalate to a full chain halt and emergency hard fork. Berachain operates several security measures. Quantstamp reviewed the native smart contracts covering staking, stablecoin, and governance components between 2024-11-18 and 2025-01-14, and the initial report classified six issues as high severity and one as medium severity. Berachain runs a bug bounty on Immunefi that pays up to 250,000 US dollars for critical smart contract bugs. These measures reduce but do not eliminate risk, since audits and bounties can miss novel vectors and copycat exploits of forked code, as the BEX incident showed. (Source: Berachain Native Smart Contracts audit — Quantstamp, Berachain Bug Bounty — Immunefi, BEX Incident Post-Mortem — Berachain Foundation)
(c) Token Economics, Unlocks & Incentive Risks
BERA carries a 500,000,000-token genesis supply and an uncapped, inflationary regime driven by per-block WBERA emissions, with a base rate of 0.4 WBERA to the validator operator and a reward rate of 1.305 WBERA routed to Reward Vaults, partly offset by burning BERA transaction fees. The economic model assumes that emissions attract productive liquidity and that staking demand for BERA and sWBERA sustains security and yield. If staking participation or migration to sWBERA falls short, or if liquidity incentives fail to convert into durable usage, security economics and token value capture weaken. The 2026-07-08 PoL Next hard fork ended BGT emissions and consolidated value accrual into sWBERA, and BGT remains redeemable 1-to-1 for BERA. Governance can change reward allocations and emission-eligible vaults through the Reward Vault process, and it directs where DES carve-outs and incentive fees flow, so governance decisions can materially reallocate rewards away from a given holder cohort. Investor and core contributor allocations vest on a one-year cliff followed by a one-sixth unlock and 24 months of linear vesting, and community and ecosystem allocations continue to fund incentives, grants, and liquidity over time, which adds ongoing supply. (Source: BERA Token — Berachain, PoL Changelog — Berachain, Berachain retires BGT era with PoL Next — Invezz, Berachain Airdrop Overview — Berachain Blog)
This Token Transparency Filing is provided for general informational purposes only and does not verify or warrant the accuracy of individual answers.