Questions, answered without the marketing voice

No, and this is deliberate. Charging users a toll in your own token to use your product is a way of manufacturing demand, not creating it. Vaults take their underlying asset and nothing else.

No. Funds sit in the vault contract, and no manager, keeper or admin address has a function that can transfer them out. A manager produces a signature authorising a rebalance within limits the vault enforces independently. The worst a compromised manager key can do is push exposure to a bad target, within the daily rate limit, until the key is rotated.

Yes, and we publish them. Our internal audit found that the USDC yield vault valued shares against a yield-adapter balance it never actually funded, so a depositor could have burned every share and received nothing while their principal stayed stuck in the contract. Deposits were disabled until it was fixed. It is now fixed and pinned by a fuzz test asserting a deposit-then-redeem round trip is whole. All 24 findings from that review are written up in the protocol repository.

A performance fee only, charged on gains above a high-water mark. 20% on the equity vaults, 10% on the yield vault. There is no management fee, so a vault that does nothing costs you nothing, and no deposit or withdrawal fee.

No. The entire supply of 1,000,000,000 is minted in the constructor and there is no mint function on the contract. Not an owner-gated one, not a testnet one, nothing. Supply can only fall, through burns. An earlier revision did carry a testnet mint function; it was removed, and a test now asserts no mint entrypoint exists in the ABI.

No. There is no staking, no yield, no dividend and no revenue share. Protocol fees are used to buy ZOR on the open market and burn it, which reduces supply. That is not a payment to holders and it is not a promise about price.

It is more than the fashion, and that is the point. Launching a small float into a thin order book produces a price that means nothing, and every subsequent unlock then lands on a market that cannot absorb it. A real float and protocol-owned liquidity make the token harder to move around and less dependent on the next unlock going quietly.

25% between contributors and backers, with nothing at launch and nothing for twelve months. Contributors then vest linearly to month 48, backers to month 36. Unvested tokens sit in the vesting contract and carry zero voting weight, so nobody votes with tokens they have not earned.

We are not in a position to give you a legal conclusion, and you should not accept one from a project website. What we can tell you is the design: no yield, no dividend, no revenue share, no claim on treasury assets, and a buyback that is triggered permissionlessly rather than at anyone’s discretion. Read the risk disclaimer, and take your own advice.

It carries real voting weight, using ERC-5805 checkpoints that stay queryable historically. What does not exist yet is a Governor contract, so there is currently no on-chain venue to submit or execute a proposal, and changes move through a multisig behind a 48-hour timelock. Earlier documentation said the token had no voting weight at all, which was simply wrong; that contradiction is logged as a published finding.

ERC20Votes requires an explicit delegation before a balance counts. Delegating to yourself activates it and costs one transaction. This trips up almost everyone, so the portal detects it and offers the transaction directly.

Nothing. Every privileged action is queued in a 48-hour timelock, so you get two days of on-chain notice. The token contract itself has no admin function at all, so there is nothing to queue against it.

The contracts have been through a full internal security review. Every finding is written up in the protocol repository, all of them are closed, and each one is pinned by a regression test. An external audit is a gate before mainnet, not something arranged afterwards.

Total loss. That is true of every smart contract, and no audit changes it. Tokenised equity exposure can also fall, oracles can fail, and a manager can simply be wrong repeatedly. Nothing about a verifiable track record makes a bad decision profitable.

No. Zorpha is deployed to Robinhood Chain testnet only. Any address you see on this site is a testnet address until the deployment page says otherwise, and any token claiming to be ZOR on a mainnet today is not ours.