[wadiz] Transparency Report Vol. 12

01 · Sensing

AI Monitoring

AI Monitoring caught a project that said the larger the sponsorship amount, the more NFTs it will give.

02 · Review

Operator Review

We reviewed whether NFT distribution in proportion to sponsorship and "preemptive and rare" appeal were actually investment products beyond the purpose of rewards.

03 · Measures

Project Non-Exposure

There was no answer to the request for clarification, so the project was immediately unexposed before being exposed to supporters.

CASE 01 Detail Case

Although it advocated rewards, the structure was 'NFT pre-sale'.

A project will create digital assets, and as the amount of sponsorship increases, the company proposed a structure that pays a large amount of assets by grade. Although it stimulated expectations that the initial entry was a value with "early members, preoccupations, and scarcity," the platform to use the assets was still before development, and the expression of intellectual property rights could be mistaken as if the rights were secured. Wadiz asked for clarification of the Rewards' actual feasibility and rights notation, but there was no response within the deadline, and the Rewards design itself did not fit the funding purpose, so we immediately unexposed the project.

A maker confirmed a project to sell high-value rewards that pass on his know-how through follow-up monitoring. As it is a high reward, in order to prevent post-risk, Wadiz checked the data provided as rewards in advance. As a result, the completeness was insufficient compared to the appeal amount, and some of the emphasis in the story was not included in the actual offering.

If it is not clear what you receive for the price, it can lead to supporter complaints. However, since this reward includes a service in which the maker directly participates, we saw that the actual value could vary depending on the supporter. In response, Wadiz introduced the additional consulting service as the main reward and guided the maker to reconstruct the project as an auxiliary reward.

Post-monitoring confirmed that a project operated a detailed page without test reports or certification data to support it by advertising functions such as removing sweat odors (deodorization) and maintaining shape after washing. The performance was expressed conclusively without an objective basis, which could lead consumers to mistake it for actual performance.

Wadiz judged that the advertisement expression emphasized performance without an objective basis, and asked the maker to submit relevant evidence such as test reports. The maker submitted the data, but it was difficult to support all the performance expressions used in the advertisement only with the submitted data, so it requested the deletion and correction of the expression, and the maker reflected it and completed the correction.