Security
The Desk's supply side, measured
How many independent researchers have disclosed to Kerne, what came of their findings, how fast we answered including the windows we missed, and how many have agreed to take paid work at the published researcher share.
Distinct submitters on record
20
Publicly credited
12
Available for paid work
0
Requires a separate written yes
Ever paid by Kerne
0
Not a reward, not a fee, not once
Covering first reports from 2026-06-16 to 2026-08-10.
The Whitehat Desk page says a sweep is run by independent researchers and coordinated by Kerne. This page is that sentence turned into a number you can check, because a claim about capacity that a buyer cannot weigh is the same species of claim the rest of this property exists to argue against.
It is also the least flattering page we could have written about our own commercial position, and it is on the site for the same reason the realized yield number is: publishing the weak number before somebody else finds it is the only version of this that stays credible.
The claim, and whether it currently holds
What the Desk page says
Run by independent researchers and coordinated by Kerne.
What is actually true today
20 independent researchers have sent Kerne a security finding and 12 of them are publicly credited by name, with their consent, on the acknowledgments wall. That part is real and checkable.
Zero of them have agreed to take commissioned work. Being credited for a disclosure is not the same as agreeing to be advertised as available for hire, and we have treated those as two separate consents rather than one. Until that number is above zero, the Desk sentence describes where the people came from, not a bench that is standing by, and a buyer should read it that way.
No sweep has ever been booked through the Desk and nobody has ever been paid through it. That was already stated on the Desk page and it is repeated here rather than softened.
Who has disclosed
Nobody is named on this page. 12 of the researchers below have agreed to public credit and are listed by the handle they chose, with the finding class and current status of each report, on the acknowledgments wall, which is where that consent applies and which sells nothing.
Agreeing to be credited for a disclosure is not agreeing to appear on a page that exists to support a commercial offer. Those are different questions and we are treating them as different questions, so the names stay on the wall and this page carries numbers. If somebody tells us in writing that they want to be listed here as available for paid work, they will appear in the roster below and not before.
Roster available for commissioned sweeps
Empty. Nobody has agreed to this yet, because until now nobody had been asked. That is a real answer and it is printed rather than hidden: a page that claimed a bench here while the number was zero would be the exact thing this page was built to stop.
18
Finding adjudicated on the merits
2
Submitted, ruled outside the published scope
3
Asked about the programme, no finding submitted
The submitter count at the top of this page is the first two bands added together. Enquiries are excluded from it on purpose: somebody asking how the programme works has not disclosed anything, and counting them as supply would be the flattering error.
This number is larger than the one on the acknowledgments wall, and the difference is not an error on either page. The wall is a credit ledger: it carries the researchers who asked to be listed and whose finding can be described without handing over a live exploit, so it grows slowly and on purpose. This page counts everyone who sent something, named or not. If the two ever imply the same thing, the wall is the one to trust on credit and this page is the one to trust on volume.
How fast we answered, including where we were late
Each row is checkable by the person it concerns against their own copy of the thread, which is the only reason it is worth publishing. One row is a miss and stays on the page. Section 3.4 of the bug bounty program says a missed date entitles the person owed to say so publicly and that we will not dispute it, which is difficult to mean while quietly leaving the misses off the scorecard.
Met
Verdicts on the 2026-07-29 disclosure burst, committed in writing for 2026-08-12.
Delivered 2026-08-06, six days early. Nineteen findings, twelve accepted.
Met
A verdict on the PSM findings, committed in writing for 2026-08-14.
Delivered 2026-08-06, eight days early.
Missed
Acknowledge a report within three business days, published in section 3 of the bug bounty program.
Missed on two inbound messages received 2026-08-02. Both were answered 2026-08-08, about six days later, which is past the published window. Named here because section 3.4 says a missed date entitles the person owed to say so publicly and that Kerne will not dispute it.
What Kerne can actually pay
This is the number that makes the rest of the page honest. It is read on chain when this page renders, not written down here, so it cannot drift into being wrong the way a typed figure does.
Reward capacity, read live
$106.08
Base block 49,971,165, read 2026-08-14 18:21 UTC
Unpaid written commitments
1,250 USDC
Across 4 commitments, all still unpaid
That is about 11.8 times more promised than held. We are not going to present that as a rounding problem. Four people were told in writing that an amount was coming, and it has not come.
Verify it yourself against the endpoint, which returns the legs, the block and a shell recipe per leg: kerne.fi/api/reward-capacity. The published queue, with the dates, is in section 3.1 of the bug bounty program.
Kerne cannot pay a reward today, and no reward is offered or implied for a report submitted now. That sentence is on the programme page and it is repeated here because this is the page where somebody is most likely to be deciding whether to spend a weekend on our code.
What being on this page does not mean
- It does not make anybody staff, a contractor, a partner or a creditor of Kerne.
- It does not mean they were paid. Nobody on this page has been paid anything by Kerne, and the count of people we have ever paid is printed at the top precisely so it cannot be missed.
- It does not mean they endorse Kerne, vouch for the contracts, or consider the protocol safe. Several of them are on this page because they found something wrong.
- It is not an audit and not a security guarantee. A finding is a finding, and a wall of them is not a clean bill of health.
- Anybody listed here can be removed on request, without giving a reason, by writing to the disclosure address.
The offer, for researchers reading this
When a sweep is booked, the researcher who does the work takes 70 percent of the fee, paid in USDC within 72 hours of the report being delivered, and Kerne keeps 30 for scoping and coordination. On the published tiers that is $1,750 on a focused sweep and $3,500 on an extended one. The terms and the windows are on the Whitehat Desk page.
The honest part: no sweep has ever been booked, so agreeing to be listed puts no work in front of anybody today. It is an option on future work, not a job, and it is deliberately kept separate from the unpaid commitments above. Taking desk work does not settle, offset or re-queue anything Kerne already owes.
23
Not asked
0
Asked, awaiting reply
0
Available for commissioned work
0
Not available
How this was counted
Counted from three first-hand sources: the sent folder of the disclosure mailbox, read directly rather than from a summary; the acknowledgments ledger, which is the canonical credit surface; and the dated runsheets written at the time each set of verdicts went out.
One person, one row. Where two addresses or two spellings might be the same person they are collapsed into one row and the other identifiers are printed beside it, so the deduplication is auditable instead of asserted. If a collapse is wrong it undercounts by one, which is the direction an honest error should go.
An enquiry is not a disclosure. People who wrote to ask how the programme works, and never sent a finding, are counted in their own band and are excluded from the disclosure count.
What this count does not cover
The sent folder was read first-hand for 2026-07-31 through 2026-08-09, which covers the entire disclosure burst. Earlier correspondence is carried from the acknowledgments ledger and the dated runsheets rather than re-read for this page.
The window before 2026-06-16 is not enumerated here. If somebody disclosed to Kerne before that and is missing from this count, the omission is ours and the correction is a message away.
Most of the people counted here are not named anywhere, because they have not asked to be. They are counted and left unnamed rather than dropped: a tally that included only the researchers comfortable being listed would understate the work that was actually done, and the point of this page is the size of the supply rather than a list of endorsements.
No finding on this page is re-adjudicated by it. Every disposition was settled at the time and this page only counts those outcomes. If a row misstates what you were told, that is a transcription error on our side and we will correct it on the page.