Permapod

Permapod is a non-custodial collateralized lending protocol deployed only on ZIGChain. Supplying, borrowing, health-factor liquidation and withdrawal all settle on that unapproved Layer-1 chain. The version-1 rejected-chain dossier is therefore decisive regardless of the approximately $2.14M supplied and $0.83M borrowed observed on 2026-08-15.

Review triggers: events that reopen the verdict
• The ZIGChain verdict changes or the exact Permapod market deploys on an approved chain
• The reopened market supplies verified contracts, authorities, collateral and oracle controls, utilization, liquidation and proposed-size withdrawal evidence

Watched nightly: a warning on its venues or files, or a cited document that changes, reopens the memo. The first confirmation is due 2026-11-15.

The research file

Mechanism and chain applicability

Permapod describes itself as a non-custodial DeFi protocol built on ZIGChain. Users supply assets to earn interest and borrowing power, borrow against collateral under asset-specific LTV rules, and can be liquidated when the account health factor falls below the required boundary. Every balance and risk action is therefore a ZIGChain transaction, directly meeting the shared v1 rejected-chain dossier.

Current observation and lifecycle

The DefiLlama protocol API read on 2026-08-15 classified Permapod as Lending and reported approximately $2.14M supplied and $0.83M borrowed, entirely on ZIGChain. Permapod’s current site, application and self-hosted documentation expose live supply, borrow, repay and withdrawal workflows. ZIGChain’s current official documentation identifies it as its own Layer-1 blockchain, confirming rather than broadening the sole-chain perimeter.

Control, loss and exit applicability

Permapod suppliers depend on borrower repayment, utilization, asset oracles and liquidation execution. Withdrawals and repayments are constrained by health-factor rules, while the safety page and published audit affect contract assurance rather than settlement eligibility. ZIGChain validators, governance, wallet support and chain liveness remain mandatory for every supplied balance and exit.

Why the class rule decides

The lending contracts and collateral accounting cannot be separated from ZIGChain consensus. The shared v1 rejected-chain dossier therefore controls before market size, audit or collateral analysis. Reopen only if ZIGChain passes the adviser chain review or the exact Permapod market deploys on an approved chain, then verify contracts, authorities, assets, oracles, utilization, liquidations, incidents and proposed-size withdrawal.

Class rule

The rejected chain class is outside the approved structures, so every protocol in it is not approved until the rule changes. The rule is about the structure, not an adverse finding about this protocol, and it is not a client instruction. The events that would reopen it are listed with the memo.

Sources

The claims above trace to these. Where a number could not be independently verified, the thesis says so.

• Permapod — protocol introduction · primary · accessed 2026-08-15
  Supports: ZIGChain deployment, non-custodial lending, collateral, borrowing, current documentation
• Permapod — supply workflow · primary · accessed 2026-08-15
  Supports: asset supply, interest, borrowing power, ZIGChain transaction
• Permapod — borrow workflow · primary · accessed 2026-08-15
  Supports: collateral, LTV, borrow, health factor
• Permapod — live protocol site · primary · accessed 2026-08-15
  Supports: current lifecycle, lending, borrowing, tokenized collateral, audit link
• ZIGChain — Layer-1 documentation · primary · accessed 2026-08-15
  Supports: Layer 1, ZIGChain, validators, governance, current chain documentation
• DefiLlama — Permapod survey record · secondary · accessed 2026-08-15
  Supports: current supplied TVL, borrowed amount, ZIGChain-only perimeter, Lending category

Inherited controls

The research above describes the protocol layer. Every position also inherits the asset it holds and the chain it settles on. The layer with the most administrative power sets the position’s effective control; that describes control, not quality or suitability.