NFT Collection Vetting Report

Overview

An NFT Collection Vetting Report is a paginated, twelve-section due-diligence document on a single NFT collection. It is generated on demand from public free-tier APIs (OpenSea, Reservoir, CryptoSlam, Etherscan / Polygonscan / Solscan free tiers, Discord public servers, public X/Twitter handles, Serper press search). It takes three to five minutes to produce, costs 50 credits (about $20 USD), and is delivered as a shareable HTML report with a printable PDF view.

It is intended for an institutional NFT fund (Metaversal / Sfermion / RR2 Capital / equivalent), a DAO treasury doing pre-purchase Due Diligence, a high-end retail collector, or an NFT broker.

The Five Frameworks We Adopt

ICD 203 — Analytic Standards (Office of the Director of National Intelligence)

The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Directive 203 defines nine tradecraft standards. We treat these as binding for every NFT Collection Vetting Report.

UK PHIA Probability Yardstick (UK Defence Intelligence)

Every probabilistic claim — creator credibility, wash-trade share, organic-engagement inference, exit-liquidity-targeting probability — is expressed using the seven-band PHIA yardstick paired with an analytical-confidence rating.

Founder Due Diligence Methodology (MentionFox)

Section 3 (Creator & Team Audit) applies the same Founder Due Diligence methodology that anchors the Founder Vetting Report (vertical 1 of the Due Diligence Platform): named creator track record across prior NFT collections, prior employment / association with NFT-rugpull-adjacent entities, public-credibility signals (recognised brand partnerships, museum / gallery placements, peer-creator endorsements). Pseudonymity is surfaced as a signal — both legitimate crypto-native art projects and rugpull operations cluster on anonymous creators.

Counterparty Due Diligence Framework (MentionFox)

Section 4 (Creator / Studio Entity Audit) applies the same Counterparty Due Diligence framework that anchors the Counterparty Vetting Report (vertical 10): legal name + jurisdiction of incorporation + named officers + ownership structure + regulatory enforcement of the creator entity / studio (where one exists separately from individual creators).

Cross-Collection Buyer-Graph Framework (MentionFox-original)

Section 10 (Cross-Collection Buyer Graph) applies a MentionFox-original methodology. We identify the early-buyer wallets of the subject collection, then check their prior NFT-buying pattern against known failed collections. When the early-buyer set significantly overlaps with the early-buyer set of multiple prior failed collections, that is the exit-liquidity-targeting pattern: the same wallet network buys at launch hoping to flip to retail before collapse. The signal is independent of the underlying art / utility.

The Twelve Sections of an NFT Collection Vetting Report

Cross-Collection Buyer Graph — How We Apply It

The Cross-Collection Buyer Graph is MentionFox-original methodology. The NFT pump-and-dump pattern depends on a small ecosystem of repeat operators who buy at launch on selected collections, ride launch hype to attract retail, then flip to retail before the floor collapses. The methodology surfaces this network for each subject collection:

1. Identify early-buyer wallets. Pull the first 100-500 buyer wallets of the subject collection from on-chain transfer logs (free Etherscan / Polygonscan / Solscan tiers, capped at ~1000 records per request).
2. Audit prior collection-buying pattern. For each early-buyer wallet, surface their prior NFT-buying pattern across the last 12 months. Which collections did they buy at launch? What happened to those collections (sustained floor / collapsed / abandoned)?
3. Cluster against known failed collections. If the early-buyer set significantly overlaps with the early-buyer set of multiple prior failed collections, surface the cluster.
4. Conversely, cluster against known long-term-holders. If early buyers significantly overlap with long-term-holders of legitimate prior projects (CryptoPunks holders, Art Blocks Curated holders, named gallery wallets), that is a positive signal — it means the buyer-set treats the subject collection as comparable to projects they continue to hold.
5. Express in PHIA bands. Aggregate similarity is reported as a PHIA-banded probability with confidence tier.

Critical disclaimer: buyer-set similarity does not predict outcome. A collection can have buyer-graph overlap with prior failed collections AND still be legitimate. The methodology surfaces signal; the buyer applies their threshold.

Data Sources — Free Public APIs Only

We deliberately use only free public data sources. The cost structure of paid NFT-Due Diligence products (Nansen NFT subscriptions, NFTGo institutional tier) creates a market gap for asymmetrically-priced research. By restricting ourselves to free public APIs, we keep the NFT Collection Vetting Report at $100 instead of $5,000.

• OpenSea API free tier — collection stats, sales history, floor price.
• Reservoir API free tier — multi-marketplace aggregation, secondary-market depth.
• CryptoSlam free public pages — volume + wash-trade flagging.
• Etherscan / Polygonscan / Solscan free tiers — contract data, holder distribution, top-buyer wallet identification (capped at ~1000 records per request).
• Public X/Twitter accounts of named creators + studio.
• Public Discord servers — community size signals, message-velocity proxy for engagement authenticity.
• Serper — for general press / news search.

What we do NOT use: Nansen NFT, NFTGo, DappRadar premium, or any paid NFT-analytics platform. When buyers need that depth, the appropriate vendor is the buyer’s direct subscription.

Honest Limits — what we do not do

Corrections Policy

Three commitments modeled on the BBC editorial corrections process:

1. Identification window. Errors flagged within thirty days of report generation are corrected on the canonical view URL within five business days.
2. Re-publication, not silent edit. Corrections preserve a redline diff between the original and corrected text, time-stamped, with a one-line explanation.
3. Subject right of reply. The collection’s named creators or studio may submit a one-paragraph factual rebuttal to corrections@mentionfox.com. Verifiable rebuttals attach to the report alongside the original section.

Data integrity floor — ALCOA. Every NFT Collection Vetting Report carries an ALCOA Methodology footer.