Who the Zealynx Audit Grants are for

Honest framing on which protocols benefit most from the program, which should hold off, and what the three tiers actually fit best.

Carlos (Bloqarl) - April 30, 2026

Audit grants only make sense for some kinds of teams. This page is the honest read on who benefits, who should wait, and which tier fits which stage. Apply if you read this and recognize yourself; skip the round if you don't — there will be more rounds.

You should apply if

You have written, scoped code

We are funding audits, not ideation. If your protocol is a Notion doc, a Figma flow, or a half-written design partner agreement, we are not the right resource yet. Get the contracts written, get a build passing, and apply in a future season.

The threshold isn't "production-ready." Pre-mainnet, even pre-testnet, is fine. The threshold is "auditable" — there's source code, it compiles, and someone can review it without you on a call.

Security is a real blocker for you, not a checkbox

The clearest signal we look for is "we cannot ship without an audit, and we don't have the budget or it would substantially set us back." A founder paying for an audit out of seed runway is a much stronger applicant than a well-funded protocol asking for help with a marketing line.

Said differently: grants exist so that a team that can't afford a full audit at standard rates still gets one. If you can afford a full audit at standard rates and you'd like a discount, we'd rather route the slot to a team for whom the grant is the difference between shipping and not.

You are willing to publish the report

All grant audits are published. Recipients sign off on the publication timing — we don't drop reports during your launch window — but the report is going out. If your model requires a perpetually private security review, the grant program isn't the right fit; we offer that as a paid engagement separately.

You have at least one verifiable public identity on the team

Hard requirement. Doesn't mean doxxed-and-on-camera; means at least one team member can be looked up and is accountable for the code. Public profile, prior shipping, a maintained GitHub — any of those qualify.

You should hold off if

Your code is still in flux

If the design is changing weekly, an audit doesn't help you. The findings will be stale by the time we deliver them, and you'll have spent your slot on a snapshot you no longer ship. Stabilize the design, stabilize the scope, then apply.

You haven't decided what to audit

We can help you scope, but only after you've drawn the perimeter. "Audit my protocol" has too many interpretations to estimate. Pick the modules that are highest-risk or about to ship; that's the scope.

You expect the audit to validate your design

Audits identify vulnerabilities. They don't validate that your protocol is a good idea, that your tokenomics make sense, or that the market wants what you're building. We'll flag economic-design risks (oracle manipulation, governance attack vectors, fee misalignment) but the question "is my AMM curve a good AMM curve?" is for someone else.

You're a fork with no meaningful changes

Audit grants exist to fund novel work. Forks with meaningful changes are eligible — a chain port, a new asset class, a substantively different mechanism. Forks that change a token symbol and a logo are not. The bar for "meaningful" is judgment-based; if you're not sure, ask before spending time on the application.

Which tier fits your stage

The tier you apply for isn't a category — you apply once and we award the tier. But it helps to know which tier most likely fits.

Core (100% subsidy)

One per season. Best fit:

• A founder-owned protocol with little to no outside funding.
• Pre-launch or recently-launched, where security is the gating event.
• A clear, scoped audit need: 2–4 weeks of work, well-defined.
• A team that would not get an audit done at all without the grant.

Growth (50% subsidy)

Two per season. Best fit:

• An early-stage protocol with some funding but a tight audit budget.
• Already shipped to testnet or a small mainnet beta.
• Looking to formalize security before scaling — partners coming online, TVL ramping.
• A team where 50% off makes the difference between "audit now, ship in 4 weeks" and "audit in 6 months."

Builder (25% subsidy)

Multiple per season. Best fit:

• A protocol with funding but where 25% off is a meaningful budget unlock.
• Multi-module audit where the discount lets you scope one more module in.
• Recurring engagement: planning to come back to Zealynx for follow-up work, where the Builder grant kicks off the relationship.

What we're not

We are not:

• A bug bounty.
• A code-review-as-a-service offering.
• A grants program for protocols that already have a security partner — apply with that partner if you do.

If any of that better describes what you need, ask and we'll point you at the right resource — internal or external.

When in doubt

Email contact@zealynx.io. Tell us in 5–10 sentences what you're building and where you are. We'll give you a direct read on whether the grant is the right path or whether you should wait — or skip the program and engage paid.