First ProtocolFLS #003 · Venice / VVV
Dated research snapshot · 28 September 2026 · Base · 0xacfE6019Ed1A7Dc6f7B508C02d1b04ec88cC21bf
Dated review using the approved FLS Methodology v0.2. Evidence incomplete: 48 points remain unresolved. Statuses apply to specific claims.
35–83 / 100
Range based on available evidence. Evidence incomplete.
35 points are supported by available evidence; 48 remain unresolved; 17 are not earned under established conditions. This is not a standalone 35/100 rating or a claim that the project is untrustworthy. The range shows how missing evidence affects the result.
52% of criterion weight has been assessed: 35 supported + 17 not earned. This is assessed framework weight, not a percentage of safety or independent token verification.
| Category | Supported | Unresolved | Not earned | Range |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Insider & Team Allocation | 12 | 3 | 10 | 12–15 / 25 |
| VC / Private Sale | 3 | 12 | 0 | 3–15 / 15 |
| Unlocks & Vesting | 8 | 4 | 3 | 8–12 / 15 |
| Wallet Concentration | 0 | 15 | 0 | 0–15 / 15 |
| Contract Permissions | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4–7 / 10 |
| Launch Transparency | 6 | 3 | 1 | 6–9 / 10 |
| Liquidity Fairness | 2 | 8 | 0 | 2–10 / 10 |
FIRST editorial finding: VVV has publicly described launch terms and accessible code. Material limitations include the issuer allocation, early availability of part of the team tranche and the absence of a hard mint cap. Evidence is insufficient for an exact final rating, especially for historical concentration, allocation execution and initial liquidity rights. No final descriptive band is assigned because the range crosses several framework bands.
The assessed launch occurred on 27 January 2025; the research date is 28 September 2026. Current improvements do not retroactively earn launch points. This is a completed research snapshot with explicit gaps. Preparing this file does not mean it has been published on X.
Evidence and limitations
VVV combines a publicly described launch with material project control over issuance. Immutability of the base ERC-20 code does not remove that control: mint authority is held by an upgradeable staking system. Positive developments after launch remain separate history events and do not retroactively change the conditions faced by initial participants.
Strengths of the available record include a disclosed initial allocation, accessible code and specific transfers to the zero address. The main open questions for the launch assessment are allocation and vesting execution, the launch-time control chain, normalized concentration and initial liquidity conditions.
How to read claim statuses
| Status | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Confirmed | Evidence supports a specific claim within its stated scope, such as code content or the existence of a disclosure. This does not confirm every related promise. |
| Disputed | A substantive evidence-backed challenge remains unresolved. No formal dispute with the project has been opened in this review. |
| Unknown | Sufficient evidence is missing or the inspection is incomplete. |
| Refuted | The specific claim contradicts established facts. This is not a verdict on the whole project. |
Record the source and date separately. An unverified project statement does not become Confirmed merely because it was officially published. The fact of publication can be confirmed while the statement’s factual completeness remains Unknown.
1. Insider & Team Allocation · 25 points
The launch announcement disclosed: 50% airdrop, 35% Venice including 10% for the team, 10% incentive fund and 5% liquidity. The team could access 25% of its tranche immediately, with the remainder released over 24 months. That is 2.5% of initial supply at launch, not 25% of the entire token. [S1]
Confirmed: this plan was disclosed. Unknown: complete recipient reconciliation and the absence of additional related addresses. Do not add 35% Venice and 10% team: the team allocation is included in the 35%. Do not classify all company and fund assets as employees’ personal holdings without establishing control and purpose restrictions.
Venice later stated that the team sold 1% of initial supply at launch, then repurchased tokens and sent them to the zero address. This is a project acknowledgement, not an independent reconstruction of the original sales. The later action does not undo initial token availability. [S2]
2. VC / Private Sale · 15 points
The project stated there was no presale; its March publication separately stated there were no OTC deals. The existence of those statements is confirmed. Their publication alone cannot establish the complete absence of undisclosed terms. [S1, S2]
Unknown: independent reconciliation of the full distribution, market-maker agreements and possible discounts. Subsequent company financing is not automatically a VVV sale: equity investments, token deals and their dates must be assessed separately. A “No VC” slogan alone does not earn maximum points.
3. Unlocks & Vesting · 15 points
The published team schedule is understandable, but FIRST has not reproduced its execution across all contracts and recipients. DeFiLlama lists Sablier stream recipients and describes how they were identified; this is a research lead, not a recipient list independently verified by FIRST. [S1, S7]
Unknown: specific stream IDs, balances, recipients, start/end dates, cancellation and redirection powers. Company and incentive-fund restrictions require separate inspection. Calculations for 30/90/180 days must use actual stream dates; an average “24 months” does not replace them.
4. Wallet Concentration · 15 points
A current BaseScan holder table was obtained, but launch-time distribution was not reconstructed. Current figures are not substituted for it. The table includes a pooled staking contract and the zero address; treating these as two ordinary whales would be incorrect. The treasury must still be included when assessing control. [E4]
| Current BaseScan observation | Value | Limitation |
|---|---|---|
| totalSupply() | 114 946 312,421673687721667517 VVV | ERC-20 counter; not circulating supply |
| Zero address | ≈33 881 867,5300 VVV | Rounded holder table |
| Staking contract | ≈34 837 290,0468 VVV | Aggregate participant position; not one beneficiary |
| Treasury Safe | ≈20 768 368,8702 VVV | Does not establish personal team ownership |
Readings were obtained separately on 28 September 2026, without a common pinned block. No percentages or scores are calculated from this table. Staking claims, exchanges, LP positions, vesting and wallets need classification; publish excluded addresses and the denominator.
5. Contract Permissions · 10 points
Sourcify reports exact creation and runtime matches for the token. Venice.sol and both Solmate dependencies were reviewed. The code permits owner minting without an application-level supply limit and permits owner changes. No upgrade, blacklist, pause or administrative debit without allowance was found in these sources. This is a limited source review, not an audit. [E1]
| Component | Observed result | Verification level |
|---|---|---|
| VVV owner | 0x321b7ff75154472B18EDb199033fF4D116F340Ff | Read Contract BaseScan |
| Staking implementation | 0xe37A7920dbc11253ac6d031C29f592f71B348DCA | Sourcify proxyResolution; no independent slot reading at a pinned block |
| Staking owner | 0x2D8CB8DC596daD0e1E34E2042E7ae6Df93B11524 | Read Contract BaseScan |
| Safe | Threshold 4, six listed owners; modules=[] | Safe Transaction Service; threshold 4 matched BaseScan |
| Emission rate | 79 274 479 959 411 466 wei VVV/second | BaseScan Read Contract; approximately 2.5M VVV over 365 days |
The matched StakingV2/Staking sources contain owner-controlled setEmissionRate and _authorizeUpgrade. No upper bound for setEmissionRate was found in the reviewed implementation. The current rate is therefore not an immutable maximum. Current owners are service observations; launch-time state and signer independence remain unresolved. [E2, E3]
The March Moonwell publication described 3-of-5; the later Blockworks compilation contains both 3-of-5 and 4-of-6. Readings on the review date support 4-of-6. The change date was not reconstructed, so the older description is not called false without historical inspection. Absence of a mandatory timelock in the reviewed functions does not replace a complete assessment of external Safe configuration. [S5, S6, E3]
6. Launch Transparency · 10 points
The announcement is dated 27 January 2025 and includes allocation, issuance, airdrop rules and contract/pool links. Today’s page copy does not establish when each line first appeared before trading. Timeliness points require an archive or another dated record. [S1]
Discrepancies were noted: the original announcement and staking initialize describe 14M VVV/year; a current FAQ describes the starting rate as 10M. The launch assessment uses dated primary material and code rather than combining these figures. The August update schedules 2.5M from 1 September and 2M from 1 October 2026; the latter was still a future event on the research date. The current reading at review corresponds to 2.5M. [S1, S3, S4, E2]
These conflicting descriptions require source reconciliation and do not yet constitute a formal Disputed status. The 2M rate must not be described as already effective on 28 September.
7. Liquidity Fairness · 10 points
The launch material names a liquidity allocation and links to Aerodrome. This supports disclosure of the intended allocation and venue. FIRST has not established launch reserves, executable sale depth, LP custody or withdrawal conditions at launch. [S1]
Unknown: whether initial liquidity was locked, the covered share, duration and exceptions. Low liquidity relative to FDV is not used as the sole basis: assess executable depth, actually accessible supply and withdrawal rights. Current liquidity does not substitute for launch liquidity.
Separate history event: what was burned
The explorer shows successful March transfers of VVV to 0x000…000: the airdrop transaction at block 27 484 391 and an additional transfer of 1 030 000.555 VVV at block 27 484 266. This supports the described transfers at explorer level, but does not by itself establish the source of funds for the original sale or later repurchase. [E5]
In this ERC-20 implementation, an ordinary transfer increases the recipient’s balance without reducing totalSupply, including a transfer to the zero address. Economic removal from circulation and a reduction in the totalSupply counter are therefore different claims. Future calculations must distinguish raw supply, excluded burn balances and the circulating-supply method. [E1, E5]
FLS Methodology v0.2 · approved
Category weights remain 25 / 15 / 15 / 15 / 10 / 10 / 10. The subcriteria and thresholds below are FIRST’s editorial rules developed during this pilot, not a pre-registered or scientifically validated standard. Thresholds express the methodology’s values and may change only through a new methodology version. A rule change requires a complete VVV reassessment under the new version. Existing CP and TOLLY reviews retain v0.1.
Formula: S = supported awarded points; U = maximum still-available points on unresolved subcriteria; L = established points not earned; S + U + L = 100. Report [S, S+U]. Unknown criteria remain in the denominator. Do not publish the midpoint as a score. This is an evidence-incompleteness range, not a statistical confidence interval or guaranteed bounds after future corrections.
Scope: launch terms and execution in the first 24 hours of public trading; concentration and liquidity use an end-of-window snapshot. A new review records the exact initial block, snapshot block, sources and rules version. Related subcriteria remain Unknown until the historical snapshot is available. A disclosed plan can be assessed as a plan; actual execution is assessed separately. Horizons of 30/90/180 days provide evidence context without additional hidden deductions.
| Subcriterion | Approved scoring rule | Application to VVV |
|---|---|---|
| A1 · Allocation disclosure · 5 | One point for each numerically disclosed allocation: issuer/team, private investors (an explicit no-sale statement qualifies as disclosure), public distribution, earmarked reserves, and liquidity. This measures the disclosed plan, not its execution. | 5 / 5 · all five purposes were disclosed [S1]. |
| A2 · Address traceability · 5 | 2 points for an authentic token contract and an identifiable issuer. A further 3 require a complete allocation-address register, evidence connecting recipients to their designated categories, and reconciliation of initial transfers. Incomplete reconciliation is Unknown. | 2 supported; 3 Unknown [S1, E1, E4]. |
| A3 · Direct issuer/team allocation · 15 | Apply to the explicitly designated direct issuer/team share of genesis supply: 0% = 15; >0–10% = 12; >10–20% = 9; >20–35% = 5; >35% = 0. This measures issuer economic allocation, not personal misconduct. Do not automatically classify earmarked incentive funds as personal holdings; disclose their control and restrictions separately. Unclear direct-allocation classification is Unknown. | 5 / 15 · the disclosed plan allocates 35%, including 10% to the team [S1]. Incentive-fund rights remain unresolved; the complete control map remains Unknown in A2/D. |
| B1 · Disclosure of private terms · 3 | 3 points for an explicit statement of no private token sales, or disclosure of the allocation, price and vesting of private rounds. 1 point if only the existence of a sale is disclosed. 0 for an established material contradiction. Missing information is Unknown. A no-sale statement earns disclosure points only. | 3 / 3 · no presale was publicly stated; this confirms disclosure only [S1]. |
| B2 · Reconciliation and pricing · 6 | 3 points for reconciliation of disclosed token deals and allocations against addresses and transactions in the review scope. Another 3 for no established discount in a comparable round, or corroborated absence of a private token round within the inspected register. A demonstrated discount earns 0 pricing-parity points even if disclosed. No comparable public round plus no corroborated absence of a private round is Unknown. | 0 supported; 6 Unknown. The issuer’s statement alone is insufficient. |
| B3 · Early liquidity advantage · 6 | 6 points when verified rules prevent private-round or market-maker recipients from realizing their allocation before comparable public access. 0 when the opposite is established. Inspect the declared recipient set and scope; do not claim to disprove every possible hidden relationship. Team TGE availability is assessed in C, not penalized again here. | 0 supported; 6 Unknown. |
| C1 · Disclosed team schedule · 4 | One point each for team tranche size, TGE-unlocked fraction, release mechanism (linear or cliff), and duration. Unknown elements remain pending. All other privileged tranches must also be listed and investigated under C4. | 4 / 4 · publicly disclosed parameters [S1]. |
| C2 · Team tranche liquid at TGE · 4 | 0% = 4 points; >0–10% = 3; >10–20% = 2; >20–25% = 1; >25% = 0. Independently corroborated absence of a team tranche earns 4. Fractions refer to the team tranche, not total token supply. | 1 / 4 · 25% of the team tranche [S1]. |
| C3 · Team vesting duration · 3 | At least 24 months = 3; at least 12 but less than 24 = 2; at least 6 but less than 12 = 1; less than 6 = 0. Corroborated absence of a team allocation earns 3. This assesses the declared schedule; execution is assessed separately. | 3 / 3 · 24 months [S1]. |
| C4 · Execution of all privileged tranches · 4 | One point each for a complete tranche/recipient register, matching enforceable restrictions, actual releases matching the schedule, and absence of unilateral cancellation or acceleration. Include privileged company and fund allocations, not just personally attributed team wallets. | 0 supported; 4 Unknown. S7 is a research lead, not a completed FIRST verification. |
| D1 · Historical dataset · 5 | One point each for a snapshot block, correct denominator, classification of technical holders, beneficiary disclosure for custodial/vesting holdings or explicit identification of incomplete attribution, and reproducible calculations. An incomplete dataset cannot support D2/D3. | 0 supported; 5 Unknown. |
| D2 · Largest economic holder · 5 | After normalization: ≤5% = 5 points; >5–10% = 4; >10–20% = 2; >20% = 0. A staking pool or exchange is not automatically one insider. Exclude demonstrably inaccessible tokens; look through custodians to beneficiaries. If normalization is not possible, mark Unknown. | 0 supported; 5 Unknown. |
| D3 · Ten largest economic holders · 5 | Combined share: ≤20% = 5 points; >20–35% = 4; >35–50% = 2; >50% = 0. Publish the denominator and classification table. This assesses observed economic control, distinct from the original allocation assessed in A. | 0 supported; 5 Unknown. |
| E1 · Token logic · 2 | 2 points for verifiable immutable base-token code. 1 for upgrades constrained by an established timelock of at least 48 hours. 0 for established unconstrained base-token upgradeability. Disclose external mechanisms that can change effective permissions and assess them in E3/E4. | 2 / 2 · reviewed token source [E1]. |
| E2 · Transfer and balance intervention · 2 | One point for absence of pause/blacklist paths and one for absence of administrative seizure or arbitrary modification of other holders’ balances in the inspected verified code. Unverified dependencies remain Unknown. | 2 / 2 · these paths were not found in the reviewed token [E1]. |
| E3 · Issuance constraint · 3 | 3 points if further issuance is impossible or an immutable aggregate cap cannot be bypassed by upgrades. 1 if only an unavoidable hard issuance-rate limit exists. 0 if privileged minting has neither constraint. Emissions are not, by themselves, misconduct. | 0 / 3 · mint onlyOwner does not limit quantity [E1]. |
| E4 · Launch-time administrative safeguards · 3 | One point each for tracing the complete control chain, critical powers protected by a multisig requiring at least two and a majority of its signers, and changes protected by a timelock of at least 48 hours without a bypass. Demonstrably absent powers satisfy corresponding safeguards. Signer count does not prove signer independence. Current settings do not establish launch settings. | 0 supported; 3 Unknown for launch. Current Safe settings do not substitute for a historical snapshot [E2, E3]. |
| F1 · Source provenance · 2 | One point each for an identifiable official publisher and an explicit date on the principal announcement. A page date does not establish unchanged historical content. | 2 / 2 [S1]. |
| F2 · Access to verification · 2 | One point each for publicly accessible materials and an unambiguous link to the target contract. This measures access to sources, not allocation completeness already assessed in A1. | 2 / 2 [S1]. |
| F3 · Historical explanations · 2 | One point for an accessible original dated launch description and one for separately dated public explanations or corrections of material subsequent developments. This is explicitly retrospective: it measures the available historical record at review time, not improved original launch conditions. If no changes occurred, the second point requires verifiable version history, not an assumption. | 2 / 2 · original material remains accessible; the March explanation is separately dated [S1, S2]. |
| F4 · Consistent access rules · 1 | 1 point for consistent published eligibility rules; 0 for an established unresolved material internal contradiction. Missing evidence is Unknown. | 0 / 1 · October 1 and October 31 appear in one publication [S1]. |
| F5 · Conditions before the decision · 3 | One point each for proof that allocation terms, administrative powers and public-participation rules were available before the relevant access opened. Require archived evidence or a timestamp, not merely the article’s calendar date. | 0 supported; 3 Unknown. |
| G1 · Initial liquidity disclosure · 2 | One point each for naming the initial venue/pool and stating the token-supply allocation to liquidity. Disclosure does not establish funded reserves, lock status or sufficient depth. | 2 / 2 [S1]. |
| G2 · Initial liquidity withdrawal rights · 4 | A proven withdrawal restriction of at least 180 days, or irreversibility = 4 points; at least 90 days = 3; at least 30 days = 2; only an established timelock of at least 48 hours = 1; established immediate unilateral withdrawal = 0. Verify coverage of the full stated principal position, LP/NFT ownership and bypasses. Unknown rights remain pending. A lock earns no depth points. | 0 supported; 4 Unknown. |
| G3 · Executable depth · 4 | At the T+24-hour snapshot, model a sale of 0.1% of then-circulating supply through principal public pools. Publish reserves, route and price impact excluding fees: ≤2% = 4 points; >2–5% = 3; >5–10% = 1; >10% or demonstrably impossible sale = 0. Unknown supply, reserves or execution mechanics is Unknown. This is a normative structural test, not a promised execution price. | 0 supported; 4 Unknown. |
Why the range is wide — and what follows
48 points depend on unfinished checks. Do not round the range to a convenient 60/100 or divide 35 by 52 and publish 67/100: both hide missing evidence. Unknowns may reflect FIRST’s limitations rather than project opacity. Established adverse facts, unfinished research and absent public disclosure require distinct reasons in the record.
Research priorities: B — 12 points for deals/privileges; D — 15 for historical holders; G — 8 for LP rights and depth; A/C/E/F — another 13. A new fact updates a specific subcriterion, recalculates the result and retains the previous version. An adverse property may be Confirmed: status refers to the claim, not whether it is desirable.
Social-card text · English
FIRST LAUNCH SCORE #003
VENICE · $VVV · BASE
35–83 / 100
REVIEW SNAPSHOT — EVIDENCE INCOMPLETE
35 points supported · 48 unresolved · 17 not earned.
Public launch disclosures. Uncapped mint authority.
Historical distribution and liquidity controls remain unresolved.
Reviewed 28 Sep 2026 · Launch 27 Jan 2025.
Methodology v0.2 · Approved methodology.
Don't trust the claim. Verify the proof.
Version history
29 September 2026 — release-candidate status was removed following the FIRST owner’s approval of v0.2. Evidence, the 28 September 2026 research date and 35 / 48 / 17 points were unchanged. This was an editorial update, not a new on-chain check.
Publication, corrections and Right to Reply
Researcher disclosure
No VVV holdings. No compensation from or relationship with Venice. The project was selected independently for research because of its current relevance on Base.
FLS Methodology v0.2 was approved by the FIRST owner. This file was prepared for release; no X publication was performed. Right to Reply is available through the FIRST form: identify a specific claim, provide a public source and explain the issue. Venice was not contacted and no independent reviewer has confirmed this review.
Historical RC1 → RC2 revision: precise scoring and unresolved-point rules were added; A/B/C/F/G subcriteria were reclassified; disclosed plans, execution and historical-source availability were distinguished. This was the methodology pilot. Cross-project calibration remains limited; existing published scores for other launch models are not overwritten.
Sources and provenance
- S1 · Launch announcement · 27 January 2025
- S2 · Venice is Burning · 12.03.2025
- S3 · Tokenomics update · 17 July / 5 August 2026
- S4 · Current tokenomics FAQ
- S5 · Moonwell proposal · attributed research, not a FIRST audit
- S6 · Blockworks compilation · not independent proof
- S7 · DeFiLlama unlocks · lead for stream reconciliation
- E1 · Sourcify · token exact match
- E2 · Sourcify · staking implementation
- E3 · Safe Transaction Service · current configuration
- E4 · BaseScan · token and holders
- E5a · Airdrop transfer · 12.03.2025
- E5b · Additional transfer · 12 March 2025
- Brand · Official Venice logos
The official Venice wordmark was obtained from the Venice API Docs repository; it is an original brand asset, not an invented symbol. The card text is recorded above. The earlier candidate image is retained as history; the current social card uses v0.2 and Evidence Incomplete.
Sources were inspected on 28 September 2026. Direct RPC requests to three providers returned HTTP 403. BaseScan HTML and Sourcify/Safe JSON were accessible through another reading method. Different services were not pinned to one block; FIRST did not complete independent RPC confirmation, recompilation or an audit. Historical transactions have block numbers; they do not date the current readings.
Download sources and observations (ZIP)
FLS assesses launch structure and transparency. It does not assess future price or guarantee safety. 100/100 means the criteria of a particular version are met, not exhaustive knowledge of a project.