Proof of Fair Launch

The Fair Launch Test

Answer the questions for any coin or chain — not just Proofra — and see how it scores against the Proof of Fair Launch standard. Your result lives in the link, so you can share it.

How it scores. Every question is a verifiable fact, not a judgment call. Any insider reserve or guaranteed advantage is a violation — no matter how small, or what it is called. There is no “a little bit fair”: a single violation means it is not a fair launch. “Can’t verify” is its own state — if a project doesn’t make a fact checkable, that is recorded as unverified, not a pass.

SupplyIs any supply reserved for insiders before public mining — premine, dev, team, foundation, or “ecosystem” reserve (any amount)?

No — every coin is mined or earned under the same public rules Yes — some supply is reserved (any size) Can’t verify

The bar is zero. Any reserved share is supply the public can’t reproduce — the size only tells you how far it goes, it doesn’t make it fair.

SaleWas there a presale, private sale, or private liquidity raise before the chain was public and mineable?

No — no sale before public mining Yes — there was a presale or private raise Can’t verify

A presale gives selected buyers a price and a head start the public never had.

SaleDid a pre-chain token (an IOU) or a market/price for it exist before the real chain did?

No — the chain shipped first, the market formed after Yes — an IOU or market existed before the chain Can’t verify

Trading a placeholder before the chain exists means a price formed before anyone could mine a single coin.

Protocol incomeDoes any block reward or fee go to a fund, treasury, or fixed recipient — rather than to the open participants who do verifiable work to secure the chain (a role anyone can take on through public, permissionless work)?

No — rewards go only to open participants paid for verifiable work; nothing to a fund or fixed party Yes — a share goes to a treasury, fund, or fixed recipient (any name) Can’t verify

What it is called does not matter — a guaranteed cut siphoned into a treasury, “ecosystem fund”, dev fee, or fixed party is an insider income stream. Paying open participants for verifiable work — miners, finality signers, storage providers, or any role anyone can take on through public, permissionless work — is the network paying for work under public rules, not an insider cut.

Protocol incomeIs there an admin/mint key or upgradable owner that can create supply or change the launch economics?

No such key or owner exists Yes — a key or owner can mint or change the economics Can’t verify

A key that can mint or rewrite the economics means the rules can change under everyone — a multisig or timelock spreads the key but the power still exists.

Mining & timingWas there hidden mining, instamine, stealth-mine, or insider early access before the public start?

No — mining started in public from block zero Yes — there was a private or early-access head start Can’t verify

A private head start lets insiders grab coins before the public could even join — the opposite of equal access.

Mining & timingWere the software and rules public and open to everyone, so the public could join on the same terms as insiders — with no insider-only binaries, information, or access?

Yes — public and open to all on the same terms No — insiders had the software, information, or access first Can’t verify

The fairness test is information parity — the public getting the software and rules at the same time as insiders. A pre-announced exact launch time is a nice-to-have; open access is the requirement.

Mining & timingIs the emission / difficulty schedule public and not front-loaded so the first few hours mint an outsized share?

Yes — public and not front-loaded No — early blocks mint an outsized share Can’t verify

Even with no premine, a schedule that dumps a huge share in the first hours is an instamine — a head start by parameters.

VerifiabilityIs the project open source — at least the node and the parts needed to verify the launch?

Yes — open source No — closed, or closed where it matters Can’t verify

Without open source, “fair launch” cannot be checked at all; you are taking it on faith.

VerifiabilityWere source, binaries, checksums, and genesis public before mining, so the launch can be independently reproduced?

Yes — everything needed was public before launch No — key pieces were missing or private Can’t verify

A launch you cannot reproduce without a private channel cannot be independently trusted.

GovernanceHow are consensus changes actually made — as opt-in upgrades at a future, announced height (open source, no retroactive rewrites) — or has the project ever pushed retroactive changes or forced / silently invalidated a running chain?

Opt-in upgrades at announced heights, open source, no retroactive or forced changes The project has changed rules retroactively or forced / silently invalidated a running chain Can’t verify

Whoever maintains the client can technically push anything — that capability exists for every project, including the fair ones, so it is not the test. What matters is the practice: changes shipped as opt-in upgrades at announced heights, an open-source history anyone can audit, and no track record of reaching back to rewrite a running chain. The protection is transparency and opt-in adoption, not an impossible promise that no one could ever push code.

TransparencyIs the project honest about its stage, limits, and who is accountable — instead of overstating what exists (fake “live mainnet”, guaranteed returns, hidden risks)?

Yes — measured, verifiable claims No — clear overclaiming or hidden risks Can’t verify

Overclaiming is itself a red flag, even when the launch mechanics look clean.

The test is open and applies to every project — including this one. It is meant to make the standard harder to fake, not to be something only Proofra can pass. See how Proofra intends to answer these in the manifest.