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
Traditional blockchain oracles rely on an inefficient "push" model that continuously writes data on-chain, leading to exorbitant gas fees, high latency, and poor scalability across L2s and emerging networks. RedStone solves this by pioneering a modular, "pull-based" oracle architecture that stores signed data off-chain and attaches it to transactions only when needed by users or dApps. This approach dramatically reduces gas overhead, delivers sub-second data availability, and enables customizable data feeds across dozens of chains. Consequently, RedStone removes the financial and technical bottlenecks that previously restricted DeFi scalability and cross-chain expansion
(b) Operational priorities
To ensure long-term operational and technical sustainability, RedStone relies on a dual strategy of real protocol revenue generation and robust tokenomics:
- Protocol Revenue & Monetization: RedStone operates a self-sustaining business model where dApps and data consumers pay for oracle services across 110+ networks. Fees accrued from data feeds, enterprise integrations, and Oracle Extractable Value (OEV) capture are collected in major assets (e.g., ETH, USDC, SOL), generating continuous cash flow to fund infrastructure, R&D, and core team operations.
- Token Utility & Economic Security: The native $RED token anchors network security through restaking and Actively Validated Services (AVS). Data providers and stakers stake $RED to guarantee data fidelity, receiving a share of protocol revenue. Furthermore, dedicated token reserves for Ecosystem & Data Providers fuel long-term node operator incentives, cross-chain expansion, and strategic developer grants.
(c) High-level project overview
At a high level, RedStone operates as a modular, multi-chain oracle infrastructure that decouples data collection, storage, and on-chain verification into specialized, independent layers.
1. Off-Chain Data Aggregation Layer.
2. Dynamic Data Delivery Models
3. On-Chain Verification & Aggregation
4. Economic Security & Restaking (EigenLayer / AVS.
(d) Primary token functions
The native $RED token anchors network security through restaking and Actively Validated Services (AVS). Data providers and stakers stake $RED to guarantee data fidelity, receiving a share of protocol revenue. Furthermore, dedicated token reserves for Ecosystem & Data Providers fuel long-term node operator incentives, cross-chain expansion, and strategic developer grants.
(e) Control surface reliance
RedStone’s operational and governance model is built around a foundation-led structure designed to prioritize protocol security, high uptime, and enterprise-grade reliability across all supported chains.
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.
Foundation
Full Name | Official Title | Prior Experience |
|---|---|---|
Jakub Wojciechowski | CEO | DeltaPrime |
Marcin Kazmierczak | COO | ETHWarsaw |
Alex Suvorov | Co-Founder | Vecton |
DAO Structure
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.
- (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) Current tokenholder governance rights and economic arrangements — If any, describe the current governance rights of tokenholders and any presently operative rights or arrangements relating to treasury actions, fee-routing, rewards, buybacks, or other protocol-controlled resources. If none, state that explicitly.
- (e) Control surface reliance — If any, briefly describe the anticipated or possible evolution of the protocol's governance/control model.
- (f) 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
Entity behind RedStone owns the IP rights. There is no DAO.
(b) Contract/admin powers
There is non DAO
(c) Locked-token rights (conditional)
There is no DAO structure in RedStone.
(d) Current tokenholder governance rights and economic arrangements
The native $RED token anchors network security through restaking and Actively Validated Services (AVS). Data providers and stakers stake $RED to guarantee data fidelity, receiving a share of protocol revenue. Furthermore, dedicated token reserves for Ecosystem & Data Providers fuel long-term node operator incentives, cross-chain expansion, and strategic developer grants. There is no buybacks system yet.
(e) Control surface reliance
N/A
(f) Dissolution authority
There is no DAO structure in RedStone.
Primary Foundation
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 is 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)
- (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).
- (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.
(a) Entity
Association, Switzerland.
(b) IP ownership & control
All the rights related to $RED tokens.
(c) Powers over DAO, treasury, protocol-controlled resources, and token administration
Currently, RedStone operates under a progressive decentralization model. Governance and administrative control over protocol parameters, treasury allocations, token contract features, and reward structures are managed through a combination of foundation oversight (RedStone Distributed Data Association) and multi-signature (multisig 2 out of 3)
(d) Powers over DevCo
Not sure if I understand this correctly. Who is DevCo?
(e) Contract/admin powers
Mutual decision of all shareholders.
(f) Current economic arrangements and distribution policies
All decisions regarding assets such as the Association's funds or tokens are made by the founders by unanimous vote.
Primary DevCo
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 is 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)
- (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
Described in "Primary Foundation" section.
(b) IP ownership & control
Described in "Primary Foundation" section.
(c) Powers over DAO, treasury, protocol-controlled resources, and token administration
Described in "Primary Foundation" section.
(d) Powers over Foundation
Please check section 4.
(e) Contract/admin powers
Described in the"Primary Foundation" section.
(f) Current economic arrangements and distribution policies
All decisions regarding assets such as the Association's funds or tokens are made by the founders by unanimous vote.
Token Supply & Allocations
Initial Allocation
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
$RED | 2025-03-06 | Community & Genesis | Community | 10.00% | 100,000,000 | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0.00% | 6 | 1 | Yes | holding | holding |
$RED | 2025-03-06 | Protocol development | Ecosystem | 10.00% | 100,000,000 | 0.00% | 0 | |||||||
$RED | 2025-03-06 | Core Contributors | Ecosystem | 20.00% | 200,000,000 | 0.00% | 0 | |||||||
$RED | 2025-03-06 | Binance Launchpool | Market Structure | 4.00% | 40,000,000 | 0.00% | 0 | |||||||
$RED | 2025-03-06 | Ecosystem & Data providers | Ecosystem | 24.30% | 243,000,000 | 0.00% | 0 | |||||||
$RED | 2025-03-06 | Early Backers | Community | 31.70% | 317,000,000 | 0.00% | 0 |
Airdrop Process
State the project's airdrop status plainly, and back it up:
- Never conducted and none planned for TGE: state so plainly.
- Planned but not yet executed: state the target user segments (e.g., "stakers of X," "Aave users") and the allocation method (e.g., proportional to balance or net position), and commit to publishing a recipient wallet list in a public channel and providing it to Blockworks quarterly until the initial TGE airdrop is fully completed.
- Already executed: state the covered user segments and the allocation method, and 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.
This is sensitive information, and I'm not sure if it should be disclosed in its entirety. Here are the information about $RED airdrop:
https://blog.redstone.finance/2025/03/05/redstone-distributed-data-association-announces-miner-airdrop/
Transactions & Market Structures
Market Maker Agreements & Deals
Projects must disclose all material terms of market-making arrangements that affect token liquidity. If the project has no agreements or deals with market makers, state that explicitly. 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).
If no native tokens were loaned or allocated to market makers, state that explicitly; cash/fiat retainers or fees are not required for (b).
Exchange 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.
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 Instrument | Date Of Sale | Number of tokens sold | Vesting Schedule |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Pre-Seed | SAFT | 07.2021 | 105,000,000 | 12m lock-up, 18m linear vesting |
SEED | SAFT | 08.2022 | 133,181,818 | 12m lock-up, 18m linear vesting |
SERIES A | SAFT | 07.2024 | 78,775,000 | 12m lock-up, 18m linear vesting |
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 — Link(s) to post-mortem/advisory/PR.
(a) Date & component affected
No exploits affecting tokenholders or protocol funds as of 2026-08-04
(b) Exploit vector summary
No exploits affecting tokenholders or protocol funds as of 2026-08-04
(c) Quantified impact
No exploits affecting tokenholders or protocol funds as of 2026-08-04
(d) Remediation/response taken
No exploits affecting tokenholders or protocol funds as of 2026-08-04
(e) Current status
No exploits affecting tokenholders or protocol funds as of 2026-08-04
(f) References
No exploits affecting tokenholders or protocol funds as of 2026-08-04
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
As the project responsible for Oracle, we are fortunate that any potential regulatory changes in the cryptocurrency markets do not affect us. The only legal act that has any impact on the project (token) is MiCa. We have submitted all the necessary documents by the deadlines. MiCa RedStone is available here:
https://www.redstone.finance/mica
(b) Protocol, Technology & Security Risks
RedStone undergoes regular audits to prevent potential errors. Lists of audits:
https://docs.redstone.finance/docs/security/audits/
The risks certainly lie in the liquidity of the asset from which we derive our data. These are often factors beyond our control, such as those related to CEXs, where there may not be sufficient liquidity. In such cases, we implement internal procedures to ensure that the price of the asset in question is always accurate.
(c) Token Economics, Unlocks & Incentive Risks
The economic architecture of the $RED token is designed around a fixed maximum supply of 1,000,000,000 tokens, combining a structured 4-year unlock schedule (~30% initial float, 70% locked/vesting) with a real-revenue staking model.
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. RedStone is solely responsible for the content, accuracy, and legality of its disclosures.