Issue 03 · August 2026 · current issue. This is the permanent record of Canton Quadrant issue 03. Issues are archived and never edited; corrections appear in the next issue with a note, and on the affected project page. Methodology and issue index: /quadrant. Previous issues: issue 02 · issue 01.
SCORED: Temple · Cashen · Alpend · Helios · Cantex · Zenith · Canborsa · Lattice · Tradecraft · OneSwap · onRails
REVIEWED, NOT CHARTED: ACME Markets · Askardex · Rocky
Canton Catalyst Research

The Canton Quadrant, issue 03

A public, rubric-scored map of pre-token Canton Network projects. Two axes: what a project has verifiably built, and how far it has moved toward a token. Confirmed evidence only. Published monthly, archived forever, never edited after the fact.

The short version

What this issue found

If you read nothing elseEleven projects are charted, three of them new, and three more were reviewed and held off the chart with the reason stated. Everything below this line is the evidence for the five findings above, grouped by what the chart says now, what moved in the record, and what is not on the chart at all.
The map

The chart

Eleven projects charted, three of them new. The chart answers one question in one glance: how much verified substance does a project have, and how close is it to issuing a token?

Why this instrument existsEvery other view of Canton is a directory: a list of projects with descriptions they wrote themselves. That tells you who exists. It does not tell you what has been checked. The Quadrant separates the two axes people usually blur together, how much a project has actually proven and how close it is to asking you to buy something, so you can see a project with heavy substance and no token, or heavy noise and no substance, and tell them apart in a second.
0No token statement
Temple7/7corrected Cashen5/7corrected Helios4/7held Cantex3/7withdrawn Tradecraft3/7new onRails3/7new Lattice1/7held
Issue 03 zoom frame showing the intent 0 band with the evidence spine visible on each card

The zoom frame: the quiet build column. Intent tier 0, the projects that have made no token statement at all, shown close up with the evidence spine on. Each card carries seven small marks, one per substance item: filled where confirmed, dashed where announced, empty where absent.

How to read it Two projects can both read 3 of 7 and be confirmed on entirely different items. The spine shows which three. Detail arrives when the camera gets closer; the wide chart stays legible because it does not try to show this.

Three projects scored for the first time

New entrants

OneSwap, 2 of 7, intent 2

  • The most visible entrant on the radar this cycle, and it scores 2 of 7. The gap between visibility and verification is the whole story of this entry.
  • Confirmed: a live AMM and a self custodial wallet on Canton mainnet, with the Featured App approval and the wallet launch both carried on Canton Network's own channel, which also clears official ecosystem status.
  • The audit item scores zero, and the project says why itself. The page at oneswap.cc/audit states plainly that its operational control review is not a third party external audit opinion. Recorded as candour, scored as the binary requires.
  • The team item scores zero on half the test. A founder is publicly named. No entity registration was located, and the item needs both halves.
  • Intent 2 under the ruling above, the only project on the chart running an incentive program.

Tradecraft, 3 of 7, intent 0

  • Three of seven items verified, and almost nothing said publicly about any of them. The evidence is easier to find than the project is.
  • Confirmed: live on mainnet, listed on canton.network, and an audit published by Halborn on Halborn's own site, which is exactly the form the audit item was written to reward.
  • The team item scores zero. The operating entity is named as Obsidian; no leadership is named.
  • Intent 0. The no pre mine and no ICO language refers to Canton Coin, not to any token of its own, and yield is framed as trading fees throughout.

onRails, 3 of 7, intent 0

  • The off radar find, pulled in under the wider pool criterion rather than by mention volume.
  • Confirmed: cETH live on Canton with HandlPay and Rocky Wallet integrations, an ecosystem listing on cantonecosystem.com under the Cantex precedent, and the Consensys Diligence audit on the auditor's own index.
  • Foundation membership sits at announced. The claim appears on onrails.finance, which makes it a project claim regardless of who it names.
  • Intent 0. cETH is a wrapped asset representation, not a project token.
Why this mattersThree projects entered this issue with very different public profiles and very similar amounts of checkable evidence. That is the instrument doing its job. Mentions measure how much is being said about a project. The substance count measures how much of it a stranger can verify without asking. Neither number ranks anyone, and a chart that collapsed them into one would be a popularity list with extra steps.
Scoring note

The tier 2 ruling

Issue 03 forced a question the intent ladder had never had to answer: what exactly counts as an incentive program? The ruling is now on the methodology page and in the record.

  • Tier 2 means a live, ongoing, project sponsored incentive scheme. Points, recurring reward campaigns, or allocation mechanics, running on the project's own surfaces or on surfaces it sponsors.
  • Reward denomination is irrelevant. Paying prizes in Canton Coin or in any listed asset does not exempt a program. What matters is that the project is running a scheme, not what the prizes are made of.
  • One off promotions do not qualify. A single launch campaign is a promotion. A recurring one is a program.
  • Protocol fee mechanics do not qualify. Rebates and LP fees are how an exchange works, not a reward scheme layered on top of it.
  • Platform machinery belongs to the platform. XP, badges and ranks on a hub belong to the hub, not to a project sponsoring a campaign there.

Applied to three cases this issue:

  • OneSwap moves to intent 2. Recurring campaigns on its own channels, Happy Hour, Daily Drop and HODL Wall, plus a sponsored campaign on CC Tools' Earn Hub. It is the only project on the chart running a program.
  • Temple holds at intent 0. A single sponsored launch promotion on a third party hub. A promotion, not a program.
  • Cantex holds. Fee rebates are protocol economics.
Why this mattersToken intent is the axis that tells you whether a project is likely to ask you for money, and it is the one most easily gamed by wording. Without a written test, "we have a rewards campaign" and "we are running a points program ahead of a token" look identical from outside. The ruling draws the line in public, before it is needed, so a project cannot argue it afterwards and I cannot move it afterwards either.
The record correcting itself

Corrections to issue 02

Issues are never edited after they publish. Mistakes get corrected in the next issue, in the open, with the reason attached. Issue 02 carries two, one in each direction, and both errors were mine.

  • Temple, 6 of 7 to 7 of 7, corrected upward. Issue 02 scored the institutional counterparty item unconfirmed. DTCC's own release for its 15 July production event names Temple in the participant list, and that release predates issue 02 by twelve days. My sweep missed it. All seven of Temple's items are now verifiable.
  • Cashen, 6 of 7 to 5 of 7, corrected downward. Issue 02 counted the BitGo custody relationship as confirmed. Under the source test ratified this issue, a counterparty claim only confirms when the counterparty publishes it. BitGo publishes its Canton work in detail and names Canton Coin, CIP-56 assets and CNTN. None of it names Cashen.
  • Both errors were mine, not the projects'. Neither Temple nor Cashen said anything untrue. One item I failed to find, one item I counted on the wrong evidence.
Why this mattersA score that only ever moves up is a marketing number. Correcting Cashen downward costs more than correcting Temple upward, which is exactly why both belong on the same page. What you are buying when you read this chart is not that it is always right. It is that when it is wrong, you find out here first and you find out why.
Issue 03 changes frame showing the Temple correction upward, the Cashen correction downward, and the Cantex withdrawal

The changes frame. Three receipts on one card: the two corrections above and the Cantex withdrawal below. The amber edge marks a correction or a withdrawal, green marks a new entrant, slate marks a score that held.

How to read it Each card carries the project name and its score out of seven. The line beneath states what moved and on what evidence. If a card is amber, the record changed; if the record changed, the reason is written next to it.

If you spot the next one, the standing invitation at the bottom of this page applies.

A third change type

A withdrawal, not a correction

  • What happened. Cantex stated on its own channels that the Phase 2 limit order book is unlikely in the near term.
  • Why it is not a correction. My record did not change. The world did. A correction says I was wrong; a withdrawal says the project retracted its own announcement.
  • What it does to the score. Nothing. Cantex holds at 3 of 7, because an announced claim was scoring zero the whole time. That is the point of scoring announced items at zero rather than part way.
  • Where the claim goes. It stays on the Cantex page with a dated withdrawal note, the way this record treats every claim it has ever carried.
Why this mattersA project that says a hard thing about its own roadmap out loud is doing something most do not. Distinguishing that from an error protects the project as much as the reader: Cantex loses no points for candour, and nobody reading the chart later has to guess whether the order book quietly disappeared or was openly withdrawn.
Announced, worth zero, watched

One riser, and one that resolved before publication

A riser is a dashed card showing where a project would land if an announced claim verifies. It scores nothing today. Drawing it separately is how an announcement stays visible without being counted.

  • Zenith, 2 of 7 today, 4 of 7 if it verifies. EVM execution was reported live on 1 August through an aggregator chain only. A dated statement on Zenith's own channel, or on Canton's, confirms it and resolves the riser. Until then the solid score is 2 and the dashed card is a promise, not a placement.
  • onRails carried a riser to 3, and it resolved during the final recheck. The Consensys Diligence audit was reported secondhand, which scores zero, so it was drawn dashed. Rechecking before publication, Diligence lists cETH on its own public audits index, dated April 2026. onRails enters at 3 of 7 and the dashed card is gone.
  • The miss is the part worth publishing. I searched for the project and the auditor together instead of opening the auditor's own index of published work. The evidence was on a public page the entire time.
  • Same shape as the Temple miss in issue 02. Both times the counterparty had published and I had looked in the wrong place. The check changes accordingly: for the audit item, the named auditor's own list of published audits gets read directly, every time.
Why this mattersI could have entered onRails at 3 of 7 and said nothing, and no reader would ever have known. Publishing the near miss is worth more than the clean number, because the thing being sold here is the method, not the score. A method that only shows you its wins is a method you cannot check.
Issue 03 watchlist frame showing the Zenith riser and the three projects reviewed but not cleared

The watchlist frame. The riser at the top, drawn as a solid card bonded to its dashed destination, and beneath it the three projects reviewed this issue and held off the chart.

How to read it The dashed card names its own destination score, so you can see the gap between what is proven and what is claimed without doing arithmetic. Being off the chart is a placement too, and each strip entry states what would clear it.

Off the chart, and why

Reviewed, not cleared

A project appears on the chart only when at least one of three items is confirmed: live deployment, an institutional counterparty, or an infrastructure role. Three projects were reviewed this issue and cleared none of them. They are listed rather than hidden, each with what would clear it.

  • Rocky, high on the radar and not on the chart. Full ROCKY tokenomics published: fixed supply, mint per trade, fee discounts, governance. No live token found and no touchable mainnet, and the account bio says launch is coming soon, which is announced by definition. A touchable mainnet clears the bar, and on current statements Rocky would enter at intent 3.
  • Askardex, official status confirmed twice over. The operator, PT Askardex Digital Indonesia, is named and legally registered, and the project is listed on both canton.network and canton.foundation. The live app claim is self described and the store listings did not verify. A retrievable store listing or a touchable DEX clears the bar.
  • ACME Markets, held for the third issue running. Ecosystem listing confirmed, live claim self described, and the canton.network role block needs a visual check before any infrastructure ruling. That check is owed and has not been run.
Why this mattersA project can be real, funded, well built and still not clear this bar, because the bar measures what has been independently confirmed rather than what exists. Publishing the strip keeps the chart honest in both directions: nobody gets quietly dropped, and nobody gets quietly added. Rocky is the clearest case, visible everywhere and confirmable nowhere.
Coverage, stated honestly

The radar note

  • Issue 02 promised two or three new scorings. This issue reviewed five. Three charted, two on the strip. The overshoot has a cause worth naming: the wider pool criterion, added to catch projects that build without posting, pulled onRails in, and the funnel surfaced more reviewable evidence than planned.
  • Two radar names shrank to nothing reviewable. HelvetSwap and AllDeFi appear in scout mentions and had no reachable primary surface at review time. A project I cannot reach is a project I cannot score.
  • Seven radar names were not individually swept this cycle: EQ Market, Pool Party, Raven, Ekiden, Unhedged, EA Finance and Silvana.
Why this mattersAbsence from this chart is a statement about my coverage, not about a project. Seven names went unswept because one person had one month, and saying so is the only thing that stops a reader inferring that a missing project was examined and found wanting. The list is published so you can hold the next issue to it.
The standing invitation

Challenge the record

  • Every placement here moves on confirmed evidence and nothing else. Not on my read of a project, and not on how promising it looks.
  • Show me a scoring error with a verifiable source and I will correct it in the next issue and credit you. hello@cantoncatalyst.xyz
  • Corrections are the product. Two are on this page already and one of them cost a project a point.

Which of the seven unswept names should issue 04 open first?

Disclosure: I hold $CC, $CNTN and $HANDL. The full conflicts register is on the disclosure page. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy or sell anything.