Project & Team
Description of Project
Provide a narrative description of the purpose of the project.
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.
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 |
|---|---|---|
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. |
Foundation
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. |
DAO / Onchain Governance
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. |
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
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.
(b) Contract/admin powers
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.
(d) Current tokenholder governance rights and economic arrangements
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.
(e) Control surface reliance
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.
(f) Dissolution authority
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.
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 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".
- (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
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.
(b) IP ownership & control
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.
(c) Powers over DAO, treasury, protocol-controlled resources, and token administration
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.
(d) Powers over DevCo
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.
(e) Contract/admin powers
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.
(f) Current economic arrangements and distribution policies
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.
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 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".
- (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
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.
(b) IP ownership & control
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.
(c) Powers over DAO, treasury, protocol-controlled resources, and token administration
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.
(d) Powers over Foundation
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.
(e) Contract/admin powers
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.
(f) Current economic arrangements and distribution policies
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.
Affiliated Protocol Contributor
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.
- (a) Identity & role — Legal name, entity type, jurisdiction, and role (e.g., core development, security, infrastructure, market making, operations).
- (b) Parameter control & scope — For each existing APC, if any, what major protocol parameters the APC controls; include the method of authority (e.g., veto, majority, super-majority). If none, say so.
- (c) Contract/admin powers — For each existing APC, if any, provide the pause/upgrade powers (e.g., multisig pause), governance-executor authorities and limitations; include the method of authority for each (e.g. veto, majority, super-majority). If none, say so.
- (d) Compensation and material economic arrangements — For each existing APC, if protocol-generated resources or economic value is dynamically routed to the APC, describe the arrangement. If applicable, include the resource sources, routing mechanism, payment frequency, and duration. If no protocol resources or resources-linked economics are routed to the APC, state that explicitly.
(a) Identity & role
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.
(b) Parameter control & scope
No Affiliated Protocol Contributors exist, so no external company controls any protocol parameter.
(c) Contract/admin powers
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.
(d) Compensation and material economic arrangements
No Affiliated Protocol Contributors exist, and no protocol-generated resources or economic value is routed to any external company on an ongoing basis.
Token Supply & Allocation
Initial Allocation
Download the Worksheet, enable macros, complete the Initial Allocation sheet, then use Convert To CSV to export the file for import here. To make edits after importing, update the worksheet, use Convert To CSV again, then re-import the new CSV. The table is the final answer.
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. |
Vesting Insider Tokens
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.
- (a) Post-TGE employee lock as % of total supply — State the current total amount of tokens locked attributable to post-TGE employees, expressed as a percentage of total supply.
- (b) Typical post-TGE vesting schedule — Describe the standard vesting terms used for post-TGE grants, including: cliff length (or "no cliff"), vesting frequency (e.g., monthly/quarterly), and total duration.
(a) Post-TGE employee lock as % of total supply
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.
(b) Typical post-TGE vesting schedule
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.
Disclosure of Token Advisory Billings
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.
- (a) Existence — Whether any such token-based payments or advisory commitments exist (or explicitly state that no token-based compensation for advisory commitments exist).
- (b) Total token allocation — For all existing token-based advisors, disclose the total token allocation across all advisory services.
- (c) Payer entity — For each existing token-based advisor, share the payer entity (e.g., Foundation, Labs/DevCo, DAO/treasury).
- (d) Description of advisory/services — For each existing token-based advisor, provide a brief description of the advisory/services (e.g., "legal and regulatory advisory," "growth and BD support," "security advisory").
(a) Existence
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.
(b) Total token allocation
There is no token allocation to disclose; no advisory services are compensated in tokens from the on-chain treasury.
(c) Payer entity
Not applicable: no token-based advisory compensation funded from the on-chain treasury exists, so there is no payer entity to identify.
(d) Description of advisory/services
Not applicable: there are no token-compensated advisory arrangements funded from the on-chain treasury to describe.
KOL Marketing Activities
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.
- (a) Existence & scope — State plainly whether KOLs receive tokens for payment.
- (b) Usernames & roles — List usernames/handles (with platforms) for KOLs that received token-based compensation and describe the nature of their activities. Legal names are not required.
- (c) Token allocation & vesting/locks — Provide the aggregate token amount across all such arrangements and summarize vesting, lock, or release terms.
(a) Existence & scope
No KOL or influencer has received tokens for payment to date.
(b) Usernames & roles
Not applicable: no KOL or influencer has received token-based compensation, so there are no usernames or roles to list.
(c) Token allocation & vesting/locks
Not applicable: no tokens have been paid out under any KOL or influencer arrangement, so there are no amounts or vesting terms to summarize.
Labelled Unissued & Operational Token Wallets
For each wallet that holds Unissued Tokens or is essential to operations (e.g., foundation, operations, treasury, investor reserve), disclose:
- (a) A category label explaining the wallet's primary function.
- (b) chain the wallet is on.
- (c) The unique address of the wallet.
- (d) The mechanism of control (e.g., DAO, multisig).
- (e) One verification link to a blockchain explorer.
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.
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 |
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).
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. |
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.
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. |
Liquidity Deals and Market Activity
If a category does not exist or is not applicable, make that clear in plain language.
- (a) Token repurchases or secondary-market accumulations (if any) — Source of funds, treatment (burn, treasury retention, POL, redistribution, or other), policy controller (who can change the secondary-market accumulation strategy), and whether those tokens may be re-used, re-issued, or permanently removed from circulation.
- (b) Protocol-owned liquidity (POL) (if any) — Where deployed, total token or dollar size across deployments, policy controller (who can change the POL strategy), and unwind/exit policy.
- (c) Liquidity deals / purchased TVL (if any) — The total size across all deals, and where the capital participates - no counterparty names needed.
- (d) Token-secured loans/lines (incl. against unissued tokens) (if any) — Principal, gross position size, collateral, counterparties, and unwind/exit policy.
(a) Token repurchases or secondary-market accumulations (if any)
None. No token repurchases or secondary-market accumulations have occurred, and no repurchase or accumulation program exists.
(b) Protocol-owned liquidity (POL) (if any)
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.
(c) Liquidity deals / purchased TVL (if any)
None. No liquidity deals or purchased TVL arrangements exist, and no capital participates under any such deal.
(d) Token-secured loans/lines (incl. against unissued tokens) (if any)
None. No loans or credit lines are secured against issued or unissued tokens.
Resource Disclosures
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
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 |
Operational Funding, Economic Flows, and Resource Provisioning
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.
- (a) Entity existence — Explicitly state whether each of Foundation, Lab/DevCo, and DAO exists.
- (b) Material sources of funding or economic inflows — For each existing entity, describe its primary sources of operational funding or economic inflows, if any (e.g., service fees, grants, donations, treasury reserves, token reserves, staking rewards, validator/sequencer income, partnership payments, retained revenue, or other protocol-related receipts).
- (c) Operational use of resources — For each existing entity, briefly describe how those resources are generally used (e.g., development, operations, security, ecosystem support, grants, liquidity support).
- (d) Onchain Resource Usage — For each existing entity, provide links to public dashboards and token holder relations reports that help explain on-chain financial activity, treasury activity, fee flows, rewards, or other protocol-controlled resources. Make certain to explain what each link is for.
(a) Entity existence
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.
(b) Material sources of funding or economic inflows
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.
(c) Operational use of resources
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.
(d) Onchain Resource Usage
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.
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 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.
(b) Exploit vector summary
No prior incidents affecting the native token as of 2026-08-26: no exploit has occurred, so there is no vector to summarize.
(c) Quantified impact
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.
(d) Remediation/response taken
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.
(e) Current status
No prior incidents affecting the native token as of 2026-08-26: no incident exists to report a status for.
(f) References
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.
[Optional] Offchain Foundation Or DevCo Income Statement
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.
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.