# Ryvo Network ($RYVO) — Backable raise

> Machine-readable companion to https://permissionless.metadao.fi/raises/9EVNa5SukB5szKECdWVWssfFtsQmjiijukyXztK6PbrY
> Deal terms and escrow figures come from onchain and API records. The pitch
> is the founder's own frozen text — Backable is permissionless and nobody
> reviewed it. Listing is not endorsement.

The payment network for agents: buy APIs, data, and inference per-call, settled on Solana.

## Status

- state: CLAIMABLE
- goal (hard cap on what the project receives): $150,000
- committed: $24,593 across 22 backers
- raised (received by the project): $0
- claimable back by backers: $24,593

## The deal

- token price at goal (everyone pays this): $0.015
- MCAP at open (team package excluded): $193,500
- FDV (all tokens, locked included): $387,000
- total supply (fixed; minting needs a market-approved proposal): 25,800,000
- supply split: backers 10,000,000 (38.8%) · liquidity 2,900,000 (11.2%) · team 12,900,000 (50.0%)
- share of supply sold to backers: 38.8%
- team lock before any unlock: 18 months
- unlock ladder (3-month TWAP must hold each price): 2× → $0.03 · 4× → $0.06 · 8× → $0.12 · 16× → $0.24 · 32× → $0.48
- monthly budget after funding (onchain ceiling): $8,000
- at close (escrow releases): $120,000 to treasury (80.0%) · $30,000 seeds liquidity
- runway at that budget: ~15.0 months

## Protections (identical for every raise)

- Commitments sit in escrow; the team receives $0 unless the goal is met.
- Goal missed → every backer claims back 100% of principal. The claim is a
  transaction the backer sends themselves; nothing arrives automatically,
  nobody can refuse it, and there is no deadline.
- After funding, spending above the published monthly budget requires a
  proposal decided by decision markets, not by the team.
- Tokens are not equity and may be worth nothing.

## What the token is, and is not

Both halves matter, and reading either alone gives the wrong answer.

**It is not** a security, equity, loan or ownership interest. Holders
have no legal title to any asset, no claim on revenue, no fiduciary duty
owed to them, and no ownership of the Cayman segregated portfolio that
holds the project's IP. There is no promise of return, buyback or
future utility.

**It is** a governance claim in a decision market. The treasury is
governed by that market rather than by the team, spending above the
published monthly budget has to pass it, and the segregated portfolio is
contractually required to abide by certain of its determinations. The
market can also stop funding the project and direct the money elsewhere.

So "the DAO controls X" and "holders own nothing" are both accurate: the
first is control through the mechanism, the second is legal title.

**The mechanism is the top of the stack.** The constraints above are the
structure's current settings, not its ceiling — the operating documents
are themselves subject to the decision market, within the scope those
documents define. This is the point most readers miss, and it cuts in
both directions, which is why it is not a reassurance:

- The market can authorise things nobody promised at the raise.
- The market can also withdraw things a backer assumed. It "may revoke
  funds out of the pool at any time, or may cease using the funds for the
  currently contemplated project" (fundraise terms, paragraph 5).
- Governance power is not legal effect. The market deciding to do a thing
  does not by itself make that thing lawful or effective; anything with
  its own regulatory path still has to travel it.

The correct reading is therefore not "the page and the terms contradict
each other" but "nothing here is fixed except the escrow and the claim."
Score the raise on that basis. A page describing what the mechanism could
authorise is not making a promise; a page claiming holders *own* an asset
outright is overstating it, and that is still worth flagging.

## Diligence signals

- disclosure score (mechanical — counts what the founder chose to show, not idea quality): 3/9 — missing: six required answers, market size cites a source, a metric with a date, a founder-stated risk, a named, linked team member, legal entity named
- B1 transparency filing: filed
- concentration: top wallet G7cgdDMNMfHR45stpVLytA4NFFSyhpUsygQqxSSGPtf2 holds 40.7% of committed capital (sample: first 22 funding records)
- vetting: none — anyone can publish a raise for $15; do your own research

## Founder claims (unverified — absence is itself a disclosure)

- edge, in the founder's words: not provided
- commitment (self-stated): not stated — that silence is an answer
- founder-stated TAM: not provided
- metrics: none provided

## Links (founder-provided — verify control yourself)

- website: https://ryvo.network
- x: https://x.com/ryvonetwork
- telegram: https://t.me/+l3b40BL5oi5kMDgy
- docs: https://docs.ryvo.network

## Onchain

- raise: 9EVNa5SukB5szKECdWVWssfFtsQmjiijukyXztK6PbrY (v0.7)
- token mint: 4DNjTY3kikfTbuDszHZzeLNvFeay6KHwyhQcjTKGmeta
- quote mint: EPjFWdd5AufqSSqeM2qN1xzybapC8G4wEGGkZwyTDt1v
- base vault: F2r7SgcuxZaH2cSDvQsRhZNktmiDGgtASqvWoZe2BCLF
- quote vault: 6FrNP9MyVwbPPuTDFCGtdBaACCcNrEbz7a6kw3YvwzoM
- authority: LRrTQLqFzAPxjschuAKQAqH1XHBuBgHqwhybENStARt

## Founder's pitch (verbatim, frozen at publish, unreviewed)

## About

**Ryvo Network: The Payment Network for AI Agents on Solana**

Ryvo is raising to build, operate, and scale the payment network that lets AI agents buy APIs, data, and services per request using stablecoins, settled on Solana.

**$RYVO** is the governance and ownership token of the network: it governs the DAO treasury, the monthly allowance, and every proposal, and the protocol's revenue generated from operating the payment network and/or any additional services built on top.

## What we're building

1. **Ryvo Protocol** — payment channels with batched clearing on Solana. Millions of micropayments compress into a single settlement transaction.
2. **Ryvo Gateway (PSP - Payment Service Provider)** — the payment hub routes payments from agents to providers, handles off-chain accounting, invoicing, and compliance tooling, so providers can sell their APIs to agents with ease.
3. **SDKs & agent tooling** — how the demand side pays: SDKs and MCP tooling that let any agent or developer discover an endpoint, pay per-call, and get the response at machine speed. No signup, no card, no plan.

Both sides compound: every provider on the gateway makes the network more useful to every agent, and every paying agent makes integration more attractive to the next provider.

## Use of Funds

Raising **$150,000** at an implied launch FDV of **~$387K** ($0.015 × 25.8M initial supply).

| Allocation | Amount | Purpose |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Operating fund (~73%) | $110,000 | ~14 months of runway at the $8K/month allowance |
| Token liquidity (20%) | $30,000 | Seeds the AMM pool per platform mechanics |
| Inference float (~7%) | $10,000 | Working capital to resell AI inference through the gateway, recycles as usage revenue, not burn |
| Security audit | TBD | Scoped post-beta with quotes, funded from the operating fund via futarchy proposal |

Monthly on-chain allowance: **$8,000**, fully itemized:

| Line item | Monthly |
| --- | --- |
| Founder salary (solo, full-time) | $4,000 |
| Infrastructure (gateway, dedicated RPC, indexing, hosting) | $1,500 |
| Marketing & content | $1,500 |
| AI & dev tooling | $1,000 |
| **Total / runway** | **$8,000 / ~14 months** |

The salary line covers the development of the full product lifecycle - protocol, tooling/SDKs, Gateway (PSP), indexing, analytics, consumer & provider facing interfaces, branding, UI/UX. Any future hire is a futarchy proposal, not a quiet expansion of this line.

## Team Token Unlock

| Term | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Raise | $150,000 for 10,000,000 ICO tokens |
| Team allocation | 12,900,000 tokens |
| Unlock | Locked for 18 months from launch — no unlocks of any kind before then |

For 18 months, the team holds zero liquid tokens. The only income is the published $8K/month allowance.

**Treasury Policy:**

- The allowance covers recurring, itemizable costs only. Unspent funds stay in the treasury/wallet operated by the team.
- Anything extra or working-capital goes through a futarchy proposal with quotes attached. Two are pre-announced:
  1. **Third-party security audit** — after beta phase, scoped with quotes in the proposal.
  2. **Legal & compliance** — licensing counsel for the PSP entity.
- **Monthly public KPI updates from day 1:** spend vs. allowance, API calls served, USDC volume settled, providers live, revenue generated.

## Roadmap & Milestones

- **Month 1 (August 2026) — Mainnet beta.** Protocol deployed and verified on Solana mainnet. Basic gateway live: an RPC aggregator with Helius, Alchemy, and Triton endpoints available per-call.
- **Month 2 (September 2026) — Onboarding.** Providers (5 committed), agents, and users onboard the network; AI inference added to the gateway (float proposal).
- **Month 3 (October 2026) — Consumer & provider interfaces.** Dashboards for both sides of the network: see what your agent is buying and spending, and track your revenue as a provider.
- **Month 4 and beyond.** Onboard more providers and make more APIs available through the Gateway; expand the PSP itself; scale infrastructure with traffic. Security audit after beta exit.
- **Ongoing —** monthly KPI updates, end of every month.

## Track record

- **Colosseum Frontier hackathon — honorable mention**
- **Supported by a grant from Superteam Georgia** (early 2026)  the project's only funding to date; this raise is the first outside capital.
- **Placed #3 at Ownership Roadshow** hosted by Ownership.fm, before a judging panel.

## Team

**Luka Matcharadze — Solo Founder**

- In crypto since late 2015; building full-time as a web3-native developer since 2022.
- Multiple hackathon wins across DeFi and NFTs.
- Developer at zkMarkets, the largest NFT marketplace on zkSync (2023).
- Superteam Georgia member and former Superteam Georgia Contributor.
- Now building Ryvo Network full-time: solo, covering the full product lifecycle (see Use of Funds).

## Market & Differentiation

**Target market:** API, data, and inference providers on one side; AI agents and their developers on the other. Agents can't hold credit cards and don't want subscriptions, they need to buy exactly the data they need, the moment they need it at machine speed with zero friction. Providers currently capture $0 from that demand.

**The problem with the status quo:** subscriptions systematically overcharge (most users consume less than what they pay for) and simultaneously block machine buyers entirely - existing payment flows require signups, linked payment methods, and repeated authentication, creating too much friction for machine buyer. Per-use pricing fixes both, but only if payments run at machine speed and near-zero cost.

**Differentiation:** per-call on-chain micropayments can't achieve this. one transaction per API call is too slow and too expensive for an agent. Ryvo Network makes millions of calls settle in a single Solana transaction, so per-request pricing works at fractions of a cent.

Versus raw x402 facilitators: they settle per-call and subsidize transaction costs.

Versus web2 PSPs: minimum transaction fees make micropayments impossible.

How the approaches to agent payments compare:

| | Standard x402 facilitators | Circle Nanopayments | Arc / Tempo (payment L1s) | Ryvo |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| **Custody** | Non-custodial | Non-custodial, but batching mechanism is gated | Non-custodial, but settlement depends on the operator's chain | **Non-custodial** |
| **Censorship** | Open standard, but per-call settlement routes through a facilitator | Runs on Circle's stack and rails | Permissioned L1s - validator sets gated by the operator | **Batching settles on a public L1; anyone can integrate the protocol directly, no operator approval** |
| **Cost** | One on-chain tx per call — fees dwarf micro-sized payments unless subsidized | Gas-free sponsored by Circle | Low fees, but every payment is still an L1 transaction | **Millions of micropayments amortized into one Solana tx — settlement cost per payment effectively zero** |

*As of July 2026 — Arc and Tempo operate permissioned validator sets.*

**Go-to-market:** Providers integrate the Gateway once and their endpoints become per-call revenue streams settled in stablecoins on Solana; agents pay through the SDK/MCP tooling. Multiple providers are committed for mainnet; each integrated provider makes the network more useful to every agent, and every agent makes integration more attractive to the next provider.

**Revenue model:** two streams, both flowing to the DAO treasury. (1) API & inference upsell: the Gateway resells inference at a ~5% margin, and the same model extends to any API sold through the Gateway. (2) Yield earned on stablecoin float - idle stablecoins generate yield that accrues to the treasury. Revenue is collected by the Gateway's operating wallets (DAO-owned, team-managed - see IP & Legal) and swept to the DAO treasury, with both streams reported in the monthly KPI updates.

**Unit economics** (illustrative, scales linearly):

- **Upsell:** every **$1M of monthly AI inference volume** routed through the Gateway at a 5% margin generates **$50K/month** for the treasury.
- **Float yield:** every **$1M of average stablecoin float** resting in payment channels earns $50K/year at 5% APY; at a 2-point protocol take (the rest passed to consumers and providers, assuming 5% APY), that's **~$20K/year per $1M of float** to the treasury.


## IP & Legal

**Domain:** ryvo.network — transferred to the DAO entity at launch, managed by the team.

**X:** @ryvonetwork — transferred to the DAO entity at launch, managed by the team.

**GitHub:** github.com/ryvonetwork (organization) — transferred to the DAO entity at launch, administered by the team.

**Brand & IP:** The Ryvo name, logo, design language, and visual identity will be transferred to the DAO entity and owned by it for the duration of its operations. If the DAO entity is dissolved, liquidated, or wound down, ownership of the brand, domain, and social handles reverts to the founding team. The treasury and all deployed protocol assets remain with token holders through the liquidation process, and the code remains open source regardless.

**Deployed contracts:** No mainnet contracts yet. An earlier iteration of the protocol (Colosseum-era prototype) is deployed on Solana devnet. The mainnet program will be a fresh deployment of the finalized architecture. All mainnet programs, token mints, program upgrade authorities, and treasury wallets created post-raise will be owned by the DAO entity, managed by the team.

**Hosting & infrastructure:** All hosting, Gateway/PSP infrastructure, and operational wallets created post-raise will be owned by the DAO entity, managed by the team.

**License:** All code is open source under the MIT license. Anyone can use, modify, and redistribute it.

**Operating entity:** The operating entity is currently being incorporated.. Licensing and compliance counsel for the PSP entity is one of the three pre-announced futarchy proposals (see Use of Funds).

## How the mechanism works

- https://permissionless.metadao.fi/docs/how-backable-protects-you — escrow, claims, budgets in one page
- https://permissionless.metadao.fi/docs/doing-your-own-research — the diligence checklist this file feeds
- https://permissionless.metadao.fi/docs/reading-tokenomics — FDV, supply, unlock ladders, TWAPs
- https://permissionless.metadao.fi/docs/committed-vs-raised — why committed and raised differ