You set the reward. Today, that reward is the entire cost.
Funding an outcome contract charges exactly what's shown below. These figures describe the same canonical contract pricing logic used to construct the funding transaction itself, so what you are quoted is what is actually built and signed — not marketing math.
What funding a contract costs today
- Reward
- Set by the requester when drafting the contract. Held in USDC escrow once funded.
- Platform fee
- Zero on this deployment. The platform takes no cut of the reward. This is not a promotional rate being held open: the fee is configurable in principle, but the server refuses to fund anything at all unless it is zero, because the mechanism that would route a fee to a treasury has not been built.
- Network (gas) fee
- $0.00 for the requester. Kervyxa's server builds and sponsors the funding transaction's Solana fee; the requester's wallet only has to co-sign it.
- What a solver receives
- The full escrowed reward, settled on-chain to the winning solver's wallet once verification passes and the challenge window closes with no unresolved challenge.
- If no qualifying submission succeeds
- Payment is released only for a verified result. An expired, unfunded draft never moved money in the first place; a funded contract that reaches expiry with no submission that passed verification and survived resolution is refunded to the requester according to the contract's terms. Kervyxa does not guarantee that an outcome is delivered — only how the escrow resolves either way.
What isn't priced yet
A nonzero platform fee is possible in principle but is not enabled here, because the treasury transfer it would require has not been built. If that changes, the number will appear on this page rather than in a separate pricing deck: fees and funding requirements are calculated from the same canonical contract pricing logic used to construct the transaction, so a figure quoted here is the figure that gets signed.
A percentage of the reward is also not the only economic model available to a specification-and-verification layer, and Kervyxa has not committed to it. Specification fees, verification fees, settlement fees, margin on a managed-delivery lane, subscriptions, enterprise licensing, and protocol or API usage are all plausible ways this ends up being paid for. None of them is implemented, none of them is priced, and nothing on this page should be read as a forward commitment to any of them — today the reward you set is the entire cost.
Is the zero-fee price actually the right thing to compare?
- The work is genuinely a fixed, verifiable outcome — the reward you set is a real price for a real result, not a placeholder.
- You'd otherwise pay hourly whether or not the hours produce the result, and you'd rather pay only once a deterministic check confirms it.
- You can accept that Kervyxa sponsors the Solana network fee today, which is a subsidy, not a durable price signal for what this would cost at scale.
- You need ongoing, hourly, or retainer-based work — there is no milestone or time-billing model here at all.
- The reward you'd set is so small the effort of writing objective acceptance criteria costs more than the task is worth.
- You're comparing against a platform's published take rate expecting Kervyxa's 0% fee to be permanent — it reflects an unfinished treasury feature, not a pricing promise.
- You need certainty that the outcome gets delivered at all. Escrow and verification decide who gets paid; they do not make anyone show up. An unsolved contract ends in a refund, not a result.