Transparency · Intent, not commitment
Sustainability.
How an early-stage recovery tool would intend to pay for the audits that make it trustworthy — written in the conditional, because none of it is live yet.
[ 01 ]
The principle
A recovery tool is only as trustworthy as the audits behind it. Cryptographic correctness is one thing; the way it is implemented, deployed and updated is another — and those are exactly the surfaces where security tooling tends to fail.
Audits are expensive, and they are not a one-off purchase. Code changes, dependencies shift, threat models evolve. To stay honest over time, a project like this would need a recurring budget for review, not a single launch certificate.
The intent is that the protocol would be paired with a native token, $KEYVER, and that the fees the token would capture would be allocated to keeping the tool safe and alive — funding the audits, the maintenance and the disclosure work it depends on, before anything else. The token would be a sustainability mechanism, not a yield mechanism.
[ 02 ]
Where fees would go
A plan, not a promise.
The categories below describe how the fees captured by $KEYVER would be allocated if and when the protocol generates any. The list — and its ordering — would likely change as the project learns what its real costs look like. No specific percentages are quoted here on purpose; any number at this stage would be made up.
01
Intended
Independent security audits
Recurring reviews by reputable firms, with findings published in full — including the unflattering ones.
02
Intended
Ongoing maintenance & bug bounties
Patching vulnerabilities, rewarding responsible disclosure, and keeping dependencies current.
03
Intended
Infrastructure
The minimum hosting, monitoring and verification surface required to keep the protocol available.
04
Intended
Documentation & education
Plain-language guides, threat models, and explainers — so users could decide for themselves whether the tool fits their situation.
Note — categories are illustrative. Any specific split would be published openly once it exists, and adjusted in public when it changes.
[ 03 ]
What this is not
An honest list.
- 01
Keyver is currently a prototype. None of the recovery flow shown on this site is intended for real funds.
- 02
No independent security audit has been completed at this stage.
- 03
Any token, fee, or revenue mechanism described on this page is an intention, not a live system.
- 04
Nothing on this page is a promise of financial return, yield, profit, or any form of investment outcome.
- 05
Nothing on this page is investment advice, and no part of the project should be understood as offering one.
[ 04 ]
How you could check
The point of writing any of this down is so it can be verified — not believed. As and when the protocol reaches a state where it generates fees and commissions audits, the relevant artefacts would be published openly, so that no part of the claim above would have to be taken on trust.
Audit reports
Full reports — scope, findings, remediations — would be published in their entirety, including issues that were left open.
Fee flows
Addresses receiving any protocol fees would be disclosed, so allocation could be observed directly on-chain.
Spend disclosures
Periodic summaries of what fees were actually spent on would be published, with the underlying invoices and contracts referenced where possible.
Changelog
Any change to this page — to the principles, the categories, or the disclosures — would be tracked publicly.
This page would be revised as the project matures. The conditional tense is deliberate: nothing here describes a system that exists today.