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 protocol says issues are never edited and mistakes get corrected in the next issue, with a note. This is the next issue. Issue 01 carries two.
Zenith. Issue 01 scored S1, live mainnet deployment, as confirmed. It shouldn't have. Zenith's own launch material targeted mainnet for Q2 2026, and reporting from 23 March places the project in permissioned testnet at CIP-0091 Milestone 1. Under the announced-scores-zero rule that item scores zero. The same pass found the opposite error next to it: S4, infrastructure role, was scored announced and is confirmed. Canton's own blog names Zenith as the network's EVM and SVM application layer and a Tier-1 Super Validator, and that's a primary Canton source, not a Zenith claim.
Net effect: Zenith's substance total is unchanged at 2 of 7, built from different items than the ones published. The dashed riser moves with it. This correction went live on Zenith's registry page on 22 July and appears here so the archive is coherent.
The radar count. The issue 01 article said sixteen more projects were named on the radar, then listed seventeen. The list was right, the count was wrong. Seventeen.
If you spot the next one, the standing invitation at the bottom of this page applies.
A chip on this chart is a snapshot of verified public evidence on the day of the issue. Nothing more. It isn't a recommendation, it isn't a prediction, and it isn't a rating of a team's ability. Credit analysts have a convention worth borrowing here: a rating is a view of the evidence today, revisited on a schedule, revised when the evidence changes, and never a call to buy anything. That's the posture this instrument holds. If your day job involves vendor assessment or data maturity models, read the intent axis the same way you'd read a maturity ladder: it describes what stage a project's token intentions have verifiably reached, not whether the project is good.
Five things can happen to a project between issues, and this issue contains four of them.
New entrant first appearance, the project cleared the inclusion bar this issue. Verified movement the world changed, new evidence confirmed, the score moved. Riser resolved an announced claim verified and the dashed marker becomes part of the solid score. Correction my record changed, a prior issue scored something wrong, and the issue says so with the reason. Exit a token went live and the project leaves the chart at intent 4. A sixth state, unchanged, is what it sounds like: rechecked, evidence held, position holds.
The distinction that matters most is movement against correction. A movement means the world changed. A correction means I was wrong. They get the same prominence on this page, because a record that only shows the first kind isn't a record.
And being off the chart is a placement too. Reviewed, not charted means exactly that, with the reason stated. This issue has two, for two different reasons, below.
Every issue 01 project was rechecked against primary sources, dated 27 July.
Alpend: unchanged at 4 of 7, intent 1. A verification pass on 24 July against the live registry page held every claim. Canborsa: unchanged at 2 of 7, intent 3. The TGE is still on the published roadmap, and the timing language has softened since issue 01, from a May 2026 alignment to 2026 plus. The prior venture AUM claim remains unverifiable and stays uncounted. Zenith: corrected, see above. ACME: moved but not cleared, see below. Six projects enter for the first time: Temple, Cashen, Helios, Lattice, Cantex on the chart, and Send resolved out of scope.
This is the first issue with enough projects placed for the shape of the chart to say something on its own.
Eight projects placed. Seven sit at token intent 0 or 1: no token statement at all, or structural hints at most. The two substance leaders, Temple and Cashen, both 6 of 7 confirmed, have no token statement anywhere in public sources. The only project past intent 1 is Canborsa at tier 3, with a TGE on its published roadmap and 2 of 7 confirmed substance, and its TGE timing language just softened.
Read plainly: verified substance and token intent on Canton are currently concentrated at opposite ends of the chart. The teams shipping the most verifiable substance are saying the least about tokens. I'm not predicting what happens next, and this chart can't. What it can do is let you watch, month over month, whether that inverse pattern holds, tightens, or breaks, and which specific chips break it. If you're deciding whether to take Canton seriously, that's a more useful question than which dot looks best today: the pattern says the network's substance is being built by teams that aren't running token playbooks, and the record will show you the moment that changes.
S1 live mainnet deployment S2 named institutional counterparty S3 official ecosystem status S4 infrastructure role S5 legal entity, named leadership S6 named backers S7 independent audit or regulatory registration
One point per item, confirmed only. An item is either publicly verifiable or it scores zero, and announced claims (marked *) score zero until they verify. Full definitions and the intent ladder live on the methodology page.
| Project | Substance | Evidence | Intent | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Temple Exchange | 6 / 7 | S1 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 | 0 | 24/7 institutional trading platform live on Canton mainnet; Canton validator; Temple Digital Group Inc with named leadership (Evan Varsamis, Dan Simerman); 12 named investors, USD 5M seed led by Paper Ventures; Halborn audit plus FinCEN MSB registration. S2 gap: no named institutional counterparty found. No token statement found. Full evidence and sources: project page. |
| Cashen Institutional Credit | 6 / 7 | S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 | 0 | Delegated Lock Marketplace live with 285M+ CC in active locks; BitGo custody support as named counterparty; Canton Foundation member; operational mainnet validator; Cashen Labs Inc, CEO Luke Farrell; backed by Ergonia, a Cumberland/DRW company. S7 gap: no independent audit or regulatory registration found. No token statement found. Full evidence and sources: project page. |
| Alpend Money Market | 4 / 7 | S1 S3 S5 S7 S6* | 1 | Verification pass 24 Jul against the live registry page: claims held, no substance change, no correction entry (log 121). Verification call agenda staged; any movement from it lands in issue 03. Full evidence and sources: project page. |
| Helios Finance DeFi, Credit Card | 4 / 7 | S1 S3 S5 S6 | 0 | Canton deployment verified via chain-specific subpath after root-domain identity collision with the Bitcoin-native product; same company, named founder. Backers: Draper Associates, Draper Dragon, 3Commas Capital, BitcoinFi Accelerator. S2 zero: partner logos shown, none independently confirmed. S7 zero: audit claimed, unsourced for the Canton deployment. No token statement found. Full evidence and sources: project page. |
| Cantex Exchange | 3 / 7 | S1 S3 S5 | 0 | Research session scored 3 of 7 but the item-level S-mapping was never persisted, and the Cantex page predates the draft-placement block so it carries no checklist. Page evidence at 22 Jul: live venue confirmed (CaviarNine Limited, BVI), off-ledger matching with atomic Canton settlement, live AMM and public SDK, third-party assets listed; USD 100M volume self-reported at announced tier. Scored at 3 of 7 on S1, S3 and S5, at token intent 0. The project page predates the checklist block and carries the placement in prose rather than item form. Full evidence and sources: project page. |
| Zenith Execution Layer | 2 / 7 | S3 S4 S1* S2* | 1 | Correction in both directions per log 106/107. S1 removed from confirmed: Zenith's own material places mainnet as targeted, project in permissioned testnet at CIP-0091 Milestone 1; announced-scores-zero applies. S4 added to confirmed: Canton's own 23 Mar blog names Zenith as EVM/SVM application layer and Tier-1 Super Validator, a primary Canton source. Total substance unchanged at 2 of 7, composed of different items. Correction already carried on the live project page dated 22 Jul; issue 02 must carry it for the archive to be coherent. Full evidence and sources: project page. |
| Canborsa Trading | 2 / 7 | S1 S3 | 3 | Dot-movement pass not yet run or not logged. Owed before issue 02 renders: AUM claim status, any announced items verified since issue 01. Full evidence and sources: project page. |
| Lattice Finance Neobank, Payments | 1 / 7 | S1 | 0 | Enterprise beta live with unnamed select institutions. Entity resolved to NeoBanx, Inc., leadership not named, so S5 zero. Ecosystem listing not confirmed in this pass. No token statement found. Full evidence and sources: project page. |
ACME Markets moved and still didn't clear. Since issue 01 it gained an official canton.network ecosystem listing, its first confirmed item. Its live claim is still its own: a beta behind a sign-in, self-described, which is exactly the claim shape the Zenith correction taught this instrument to hold at announced. The inclusion bar wants one of S1, S2 or S4 confirmed, and none is. It stays off the chart, closer than last time.
Send turned out not to belong on the chart at all. My candidate pass on 24 July recorded Send's token intent as unresolved, pending a question about who owns its CUSD stablecoin. That was the wrong asset to be looking at. Send's own token page states that $SEND is a live ERC-20 trading on Base and bridgeable to Canton. Token live is intent tier 4, and tier 4 exits scope: this instrument covers pre-token projects only. The verification pass caught it before publication, Send's registry page carries the dated correction, and the substance work stands on that page. The fix is procedural: from issue 03, token existence is the first check of every candidate pass, before any scoring.
For the record, CUSD itself isn't token intent under this instrument's asset test. It's issued by Brale, a regulated issuer, not by Send entities, and its reserve yield is directed to CC buybacks rather than to a Send asset.
Issue 01 said two or three projects would get full scoring each issue. This issue scores six new projects and rechecks four, which exceeds that commitment, so here's the reason rather than a quiet change. Between issues I sized the candidate pool: 61 listed Canton projects, 47 of them unscored and plausibly in scope. At two or three per issue that pool takes more than a year to work through, and this record is worth most while the chart is still filling in. Issue 02 is the one-time expansion that catches the strongest known candidates. Go-forward cadence is monthly, end of month, at whatever depth verification honestly allows. If a future issue scores fewer because verification ran slow, that gets said too.
Thirteen projects remain from the issue 01 radar: AllDeFi, EQ Market, OneSwap, Tradecraft, Pool Party, Askar, HelvetSwap, Raven Markets, Ekiden, Unhedged, Rocky, EA Finance, Silvana. The wider pool holds 47 unscored candidates. Two or three get full scoring in issue 03, chosen where public evidence looks strongest, plus whatever the standing invitation below surfaces.
I hold $CC and $CNTN. Alpend's ONE asset is collateralized by CC. Cantex is an access programme partner of this site, disclosed on its project page, and its placement here is scored on the same public rubric as every other project. Full positions are listed on this site. Nothing on this page is a recommendation to buy or sell anything. Placements are driven by a binary rubric anyone can check: don't trust it, verify it.
This issue is archived at /quadrant/issue-02 the day it publishes and never edited after that. Corrections land in issue 03, with a note, and on the affected project page. Methodology: /quadrant. Previous issue: issue 01.
Eight chips are on this chart and every one of them can move. If you think a placement is wrong, bring public evidence and the correction lands in issue 03 with your name on the catch. And the question this issue leaves open: which of the thirteen radar projects has confirmed evidence I've underweighted? A source moves it up the scoring queue. A thread of vibes doesn't.