Loading...
Loading...
The prop firm + trading creator sector has no regulators. There's no ESMA, no CFTC, no recognized credibility standard. In the absence of external rules, someone has to write them. We're Zera. Here are the six binding promises that put us in a position where we can't cheat β even if we wanted to.
Each promise is enforced by a specific infrastructure already live (public methodology, audit log, dispute mechanism). Without enforcement a promise is rhetoric β and Zera doesn't write rhetoric.
βNot with money, not with trade, not with commercial pressure. No entity β external or internal to Zera β may alter a creator's score outside the algorithm we publish.β
Score-alteration requests are rejected 100% of the time and tracked. Repeat attempts result in the requesting brand being banned from the marketplace, with the case (anonymized) published in our annual Transparency Report. Internally, attempting to alter a score is grounds for immediate termination.
Read the scoring methodologyβA brand on the Free plan sees the same creators in the same order as a brand on Enterprise. Subscription tiers differ on access, analytics depth, alert speed, and number of monitoring slots β never on creator position, visibility, or ranking influence.β
Brand subscription tiers are deliberately differentiated on service assets (how many monitors, how frequent, how rich), never on the core of the marketplace β who sees which creators in what order. This is a line that does not move.
Compare brand tiersβEvery Score input, every guardrail, every principle is published. Methodology changes are announced at least 30 days in advance with a public changelog. Anyone can propose modifications or report anomalies at methodology@zeracreators.com.β
We publish the principles (what we measure, why, what we refuse to measure). Precise coefficients stay private so bad actors don't get a cheat sheet for gaming the score. Anyone acting in good faith gets all the transparency they need. Anyone trying to cheat finds no shortcuts.
Read the public changelogβFor every creator, every Score movement is logged with the numeric delta and a specific cause in plain English. The history is publicly visible on the creator's profile (summary form) and granularly to the creator themselves. Unexplained changes are bugs and treated as P0 incidents.β
When your Score goes up or down, you know exactly why. There is no black box. There is no "the algorithm decided." Every decimal has a documented cause. This is how a scoring system stops being an arbitrary oracle and becomes a meritocratic tool.
Read the auditability guardrailβEvery December 31st. Contents: total number of score-alteration attempts (always rejected), brands banned for manipulation, mean and median dispute response times, retroactive score accuracy (how well the Score predicted real performance), all methodology changes from the year with rationale.β
The Transparency Report is not a marketing document. It is how a scoring system proves, year after year, that its promises are not rhetoric. The first one ships December 31, 2026. We publish one every year for as long as Zera exists.
When the first report shipsβEvery fee Zera charges is published. The brand-side platform fee scales by the same deposit-driven tiers for everyone (5.99% Starter / 4.99% Growth above $25k lifetime deposits / 2.99% Partner above $50k). Add-on subscriptions are flat and identical regardless of tier ($99/mo per Continuous Monitoring creator, $99/mo per Revenue Share deal). There are no off-table rates, no enterprise sweetheart deals, no negotiated discounts outside the published table.β
A score-based marketplace where the publisher quietly cuts side deals isn't a marketplace β it's a kickback scheme. We refuse the path. Tier promotion is admin-gated and deposit-driven, not negotiated; there is no Stripe checkout that bypasses the published thresholds. If anyone at Zera offers you an off-table rate, that's grounds for an internal investigation and we want to hear about it at trust@zeracreators.com.
See the canonical fee tableFour steps between βemail arrives at methodology@β and βcoefficient is live in productionβ. The 30-day public window is Charter-binding β there is no internal lever to skip it.
Anyone β internal scoring engineer, external researcher, creator who spotted an anomaly, brand who measured a model gap β emails methodology@zeracreators.com. Every email is logged; nothing happens off the record.
Scoring team triages within 5 business days: accept for review, reject with rationale, or request data. Accepted proposals get a public draft published at /methodology with the rationale + the open review window date.
Charter-binding: at least 30 calendar days between announcement and ship. The window exists so creators can recompute their own positions under the new weights, and so the change can be contested at methodology@. Pushback that surfaces a real problem stops the change.
Coefficient lands in production. A new entry gets added to the public changelog at /methodology#recent-updates with the version tag, date, and rationale. Affected creators see the delta in their Score history audit log so the cause is never "the algorithm decided".
The full public changelog of every methodology change since launch:
Read /methodology#recent-updatesWithout consequences, promises are just words. We publish openly how we handle violation attempts β both external and internal β so the sector knows the line is real.
These six promises are part of Zera's operating code. The version of this page is updated publicly with every change. Every line has been legally reviewed. Every clause is built to survive 20 years of pressure.
It's the product. The Charter is what separates a credible scoring system (FICO, Glassdoor, Trustpilot) from one that erodes (Yelp, Klout). We maintain it obsessively because it's the only moat that matters at 5, 10, 20 years out.