Community research · Posted article

Project Research Dossier — ZENTORY

By ROSE

Open original Discord thread

From attached source: message.txt

ZENTORY is a pre-TGE quantitative research and vault protocol being built on HyperEVM. The project combines non-custodial ERC-4626 vaults with an on-chain signal marketplace where quants submit signed signals, stake ZENT behind those signals, and are scored over time. The core idea is to make quant reputation and strategy performance more verifiable than traditional private signal groups or custodial copy-trading platforms. From a product perspective, the protocol currently has a public testnet deployment, including vaults, staking, governance, signal registry, scoring, and execution contracts. The mainnet launch and ZENT TGE are explicitly gated on external audit completion, multisig migration, and legal review. This makes it suitable for pre-TGE diligence because the token is not yet live on mainnet and there is no active public ICO. Tokenomics The published TGE structure currently proposes a fixed total supply of 1,000,000,000 ZENT with no post-launch mint function. Current working allocation:

  • Team + founders: 18%
  • Treasury: 20%
  • Quant contributor rewards: 22%
  • LP rewards: 10%
  • Protocol-owned liquidity: 8%
  • Testnet airdrop: 3%
  • Strategic round: 10%
  • Public DEX float: 5%
  • Bug bounty + insurance: 4% The project states that exact percentages may still shift by approximately ±2% before finalization. At TGE, the expected tradable float is approximately 57.5M ZENT, or 5.75% of total supply, consisting mainly of the 5% public DEX float plus 25% of the testnet airdrop allocation. Because there is no public token price yet, FDV should be modeled rather than stated as a fixed number: FDV = 1,000,000,000 × assumed token price Circulating market cap at TGE = 57,500,000 × assumed token price This creates a meaningful gap between initial circulating valuation and fully diluted valuation. Unlock and Dilution Risk The most important long-term risk is not the TGE float itself, but how supply enters the market afterward. Published vesting terms include:
  • Team + founders: 1-year cliff, then 4-year linear vesting
  • Strategic round: 6-month cliff, then 18-month linear vesting
  • LP rewards: 24-month emission
  • Testnet airdrop: 25% at TGE, remaining 75% over 6 months
  • Quant contributor rewards: ongoing emissions through the scoring system
  • Treasury: governance-controlled releases rather than one fixed schedule This means dilution pressure accelerates in stages. Around month 6, strategic unlocks begin and the remaining airdrop supply continues entering circulation. Around month 12, team vesting begins. Quant rewards and treasury releases add additional uncertainty because they are not governed by a single simple cliff schedule. For that reason, the project should be evaluated using circulating-supply growth and realized unlocks rather than TGE market cap alone. Team Verification The core team is presented as two co-founders, Edge and Shaman. What is verifiable:
  • Public GitHub organization and protocol repository
  • Active protocol codebase
  • Public testnet contract deployments
  • Published security and audit documentation
  • Edge is linked to a public GitHub handle
  • Official project domain and project-controlled GitHub organization What is less independently verifiable:
  • Detailed employment history and prior professional track record
  • Some founder social profiles are still marked as TBA
  • Legal/KYC claims are stated by the project but are not independently evidenced in the repository So the strongest verification signal is shipped technical work, not biography. Key Risks
  1. External audit not yet complete The project has completed internal pentesting and Slither analysis, but the external smart-contract audit is still planned. Mainnet launch depends on this gate.
  2. Admin and multisig transition risk The project still needs to complete its planned migration to a 3-of-5 multisig. Until that process is fully executed, operational key risk remains relevant.
  3. Execution and strategy risk Even if contracts are secure, vault performance depends on strategy quality and off-chain keeper execution. A secure vault does not guarantee profitable alpha.
  4. Oracle and scoring risk Signal scoring depends on trusted data inputs and role-based settlement. Stale or incorrect oracle data could distort quant rankings and reward distribution.
  5. HyperEVM ecosystem dependency The protocol is closely tied to HyperEVM and Hyperliquid infrastructure. Chain, validator, or integration failures can directly affect availability and execution.
  6. Token incentive sustainability A large portion of supply is reserved for contributor rewards, LP incentives, treasury, and future unlocks. Long-term value depends on protocol usage growing faster than token emissions and dilution.
  7. Regulatory risk The project itself identifies token classification as one of its largest live risks. It plans to restrict US users at launch and seek legal opinions under US, EU, and Singapore frameworks. Overall View The strongest part of ZENTORY is that there is already a substantial public technical surface to verify: contracts, testnet deployments, tokenomics documentation, security policy, and launch gating criteria. The weakest part is that the project is still pre-audit, pre-mainnet, and pre-TGE, while the token structure includes a low initial float and significant future emissions. That makes dilution, execution quality, security review, and regulatory clearance more important than headline TGE valuation. I would not evaluate ZENTORY based on early price action alone. The key diligence items after launch would be:

From attached source: Project_Research_Dossier_ZENTORY.pdf

EASTERN CAMPAIGNS | ARCHITECT OF VALUE Project Research Dossier | Primary-source diligence | Not investment advice Project Research Dossier ZENTORY Protocol (ZENT) | Pre-TGE / Pre-Public Raise | 29 Sep 2026 Eligibility check: ZENTORY states that mainnet/TGE are audit-gated and that it is pursuing only a selective strategic round, with “no public raise” and no general public solicitation. The token is currently testnet-only. This satisfies the quest constraint as of the cited primary-source dates, subject to re-check immediately before submission. [1][2]

  1. What the project actually builds ZENTORY is a HyperEVM-based, non-custodial quant-signal and vault protocol. Its design combines ERC-4626 asset vaults with an on- chain “Signal Arena” where quants submit signed signals, stake ZENT as conviction, and are scored on outcomes. The stated differentiation is verifiable signal history plus non-custodial vault execution rather than opaque Telegram/Discord calls or custodial copy trading. Testnet infrastructure is live; mainnet remains gated on external audit, multisig migration, and legal review. [1][3]
  2. Tokenomics & valuation frame Bucket % Tokens Vesting / release Dilution note Team + founders 18% 180M 4y linear; 1y cliff Large cliff begins at M12 Treasury 20% 200M Time-locked; governance released Schedule is discretionary Quant rewards 22% 220M Epoch-based emissions Usage/reward driven LP rewards 10% 100M 24m linear Steady sell-pressure risk ZENT/USDC POL 8% 80M Locked 12m Liquidity support, then unlock Testnet airdrop 3% 30M 25% TGE; 75% over 6m 7.5M at TGE Strategic round 10% 100M 18m linear; 6m cliff First investor cliff at M6 Public DEX float 5% 50M Unlocked at TGE Immediate float Bug bounty + insurance 4% 40M Multisig controlled Event-driven release Supply / FDV: Fixed supply is 1.0B ZENT. Because no public TGE price exists, a defensible dollar FDV cannot be stated. Use FDV = 1,000,000,000 × assumed token price. At the project’s illustrative $0.003125 pool starting price, implied FDV would be $3.125M, but that figure is a project planning input, not a market-cleared valuation. [2] Initial circulating / float: The working TGE plan estimates ~57.5M tradeable ZENT (5.75% of supply): 50M public DEX float + 7.5M unlocked airdrop. This is intentionally a low-float launch structure. [2]
  3. Unlock & dilution risk  Month 0: ~57.5M tradeable (5.75%). Low initial float makes the token highly sensitive to liquidity depth and valuation assumptions. [2]  Month 6: strategic allocation begins after its 6-month cliff; the airdrop tail and LP emissions are also in circulation. This is the first meaningful scheduled dilution inflection. [2]  Month 12: the 18% team/founder pool reaches its cliff, while strategic and LP emissions continue. This is the largest identifiable cliff risk. [2]  Non-deterministic dilution: treasury (20%), quant rewards (22%), and bug-bounty/insurance (4%) do not follow a simple fixed unlock curve. Governance/reward activity can therefore increase circulating supply faster or slower than a static vesting chart implies. [2]  Key modeling implication: circulating market cap should be stress-tested against multiple token prices and release-rate assumptions; a single “FDV” number hides the path-dependent dilution profile.

-- 1 of 2 --

EASTERN CAMPAIGNS | ARCHITECT OF VALUE Project Research Dossier | Primary-source diligence | Not investment advice 4. Team verification signals  Verifiable: public GitHub organization/repository, open Solidity code, testnet deployment addresses, Foundry tests, security policy, internal pentest/Slither artifacts, and named stable contributor handles. [1][4][5]  Partially verifiable: Edge is linked to a GitHub handle; Shaman’s personal GitHub/X handles are still listed as TBA. Team bios and prior career claims are primarily project-authored, not independently credentialed in the primary-source set. [4]  Material weakness: the team is small (two co-founders) and largely pseudonymous. The repository itself states that public identity/background disclosure is incomplete. Treat “KYC’d with counterparties” as a project assertion unless independently evidenced. [4] 5. Security, execution & governance risks  External audit not complete: Security policy lists internal pentest + Slither, while the external smart-contract audit is planned. Mainnet is explicitly audit-gated. This is the dominant technical gating item. [1][5]  Privileged roles / key management: Keeper, epoch settler, scoring oracle and governance roles are critical. The project itself identifies multisig migration as pending and highlights role-transfer / stale-oracle risks in the audit brief. [1][6]  Oracle & strategy risk: Signal scoring depends on oracle inputs; vault performance also depends on execution logic and a proprietary strategy component. Smart-contract correctness does not prove trading alpha. [6]  HyperEVM / Hyperliquid dependency: Execution and ecosystem assumptions depend on HyperEVM/Hyperliquid availability, liquidity and governance. A chain or integration incident can impair the product even if ZENTORY contracts are correct. [1]  Token incentive reflexivity: Quant rewards, staking, emissions and buyback/burn all depend on real protocol usage. If vault demand or signal quality is weak, token incentives can become circular rather than value-accretive.  Legal / regulatory: The project itself calls ZENT classification its largest live regulatory risk and says mainnet launch is gated on legal opinion. Geographic blocking is planned, not a substitute for legal certainty. [1][7]  Execution / headcount: Two founders are covering protocol, quant research, operations, legal and partnerships. Audit remediation, mainnet launch and post-TGE operations create concentration and delivery risk. [7] 6. Decision-useful conclusion What is attractive: the project has unusually concrete pre-TGE artifacts: public contracts, live testnet deployments, explicit vesting math, a security policy, and a launch gate tied to audit/legal work. The combination of verifiable signal history and non-custodial execution is a coherent product thesis. What would change the diligence view: a published external audit + remediation commit, completed multisig migration, an independently verifiable team/counterparty footprint, finalized (not ±2% working) token allocations, and evidence that testnet strategies produce robust risk-adjusted results after fees and execution costs. Bottom line: ZENTORY is research-worthy because the technical surface is inspectable, but the investability case is not yet mature. The largest uncertainties are not “whether code exists”; they are audit completion, identity/accountability, strategy quality, legal classification, and how a 5.75% initial float interacts with later cliffs and governance-controlled emissions. Disclosure: ZENT has not undergone a public TGE and is not publicly tradeable according to the cited primary sources. This dossier uses only public primary sources. The submitter should add any personal compensation, advisory relationship, testnet rewards, or other project-linked incentive before publication if applicable. Primary sources [1] ZENTORY Current State (26 May 2026) https://github.com/Zentory-Labs/zentory-protocol/blob/main/STATE.md [2] TGE Structure (26 May 2026) https://github.com/Zentory-Labs/zentory-protocol/blob/main/docs/TGE_STRUCTURE.md [3] Technical Whitepaper v2 (May 2026) https://github.com/Zentory-Labs/zentory-protocol/blob/main/docs/whitepaper.md [4] Team (May 2026) https://github.com/Zentory-Labs/zentory-protocol/blob/main/TEAM.md [5] Security Policy (May 2026) https://github.com/Zentory-Labs/zentory-protocol/blob/main/SECURITY.md [6] Security Audit Brief (25 May 2026) https://github.com/Zentory-Labs/zentory-protocol/blob/main/docs/SECURITY_AUDIT_BRIEF.md [7] Investor FAQ (26 May 2026) https://github.com/Zentory-Labs/zentory-protocol/blob/main/docs/INVESTOR_FAQ.md

-- 2 of 2 --

Attached source files