Skip to content
>_ vibestarter://docs/07-admission-&-moderation

Docs

Protocol

Admission & Moderation Policy

The published criteria every admission and moderation decision is checked against

Launching a raise on mainnet requires a platform-issued launch signature. This page states exactly when that signature is issued, how founder applications are reviewed, and the only grounds on which listings are moderated. Every decision described here is recorded in an internal audit log with its reason.

Automatic checks

Checks 1–5 are automatic — no human judgment is involved, and no wallet meeting them is refused on any other unstated ground. Check 6 is the criteria-bound review (Section 2).

Authenticated wallet

You control the wallet (Sign-In-With-Ethereum session).

Completed signup

The Starter Card signup has been completed for the wallet.

Sanctions screening

Every request is screened against a bundled snapshot of the OFAC SDN ETH-address list; an exact match is refused. On Base mainnet a Chainalysis on-chain oracle runs additionally when deployed; if it is unavailable after the SDN list has passed, the request is allowed (the SDN list is the authoritative screen). Every outcome is audit-logged.

Geographic restrictions

Launch signing is not available from the United States, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Russia, or China (geo-IP at the network edge, mainnet only).

Founder Raise Terms

You have accepted the Founder Raise Terms with a wallet signature, verified server-side against the versioned terms text.

Approved founder application

Current review phase — reviewed against the rubric in Section 2.

NOTE

A wallet banned under Section 4 is refused all platform signatures for the duration of the ban.

Founder application review

During the current review phase, applications are reviewed against the rubric below — a safety and quality screen, not an endorsement of any project. Each dimension is scored 0–3 and the scores are recorded with the decision. There are no quotas, no category preferences, and no assessment of a project's commercial merit or token value: two applications with the same facts get the same outcome.

DimensionWhat is assessed
ProvenanceIs the build genuinely yours? AI-tooling provenance detail, repo history consistency, originality vs. an unmodified template or clone.
SubstanceDoes the project exist beyond a landing page? Working demo or live URL (at least one required).
Traction / proofVerifiable signals the project is real: users, activity, published artifacts.
Founder credibilityConsistency of identity signals (linked X account, Ethos reputation, wallet history) with the application’s claims.
// PROCESS
FIRST_REVIEWWithin 5 business days
OUTCOMESApproved / Needs info / Shortlisted / Rejected
APPEALOne resubmission with new information

Decisions follow published bands tied to the rubric above:

OutcomeBand
ApprovedTotal score of at least 8/12 with no dimension at 0.
Needs infoThe default for fixable gaps (thin proof, missing detail). The gap is stated; editing and resubmitting returns you to the queue and consumes nothing.
RejectedReserved for integrity failures — provenance scored 0 (the build is not credibly yours) or founder credibility scored 0 (identity signals contradict the application) — or an appeal re-review that still fails the bands. A weak-but-honest application gets needs-info, not rejection.

You are notified of every status change with the reason — a rejection or needs-info decision without a stated reason is refused by the review system itself. A rejected applicant may resubmit once, addressing the stated rejection reason; the re-review runs fresh against the same rubric. Rejection never affects your ability to back raises.

Neutral presentation

Every listed raise renders on the same template. Differences between listings reflect only what the founder has provided and what is verifiable on-chain. Ranking surfaces use objective, stated bases only (funding volume, recency) — there are no editorial picks, no "featured" placements, and no paid placement. Nothing on the platform is investment advice, and per-raise economics are uniform: no third-party founder receives bespoke launch terms.

Moderation and removal

Listings can be hidden or removed, and wallets banned, only on these grounds:

GroundMeaning
Fraud / false claimsFabricated metadata, fake team members, false provenance, impersonation of a person, project, or brand.
Illegal contentContent that is unlawful or creates legal exposure in the jurisdictions we operate.
Sanctions riskA wallet or project connected to a sanctioned party.
Platform abuseSybil operations, exploitation of platform mechanics, attacks on other users.

REFUND-ON-REMOVAL

Removal refunds the founder's launch deposit. The platform never profits from its own moderation decisions.

Every action requires a stated reason citing a ground above and is audit-logged with before/after snapshots; actions are reversible, and a banned founder may contest once via support with evidence addressing the stated ground.

What this policy cannot touch

On-chain protections apply identically to every raise and are not subject to operator discretion: escrowed funds on the fixed time-release schedule, the ≥50% backer allocation floor, the permanent LP lock, challenge windows, and pro-rata refunds on freeze. Emergency powers (global pause, per-raise freeze) exist for incident response and challenge adjudication under the published challenge standards — they are not admission tools.