Understanding the Advertising Framework on FTM GAMES
Projects launching or operating on the FTM GAMES platform must adhere to a specific set of advertising policies designed to maintain a fair, transparent, and legally compliant ecosystem. These rules aren’t just suggestions; they are enforceable guidelines that cover everything from the accuracy of promotional claims to the ethical targeting of users. The core principle is straightforward: all advertising must be honest, not misleading, and must align with the broader values of the Fantom blockchain community. Failure to comply can result in penalties ranging from the removal of promotional content to the delisting of the project itself. This framework is crucial for protecting users and ensuring the long-term credibility of the platform.
The policies are deeply integrated with the platform’s technical infrastructure. For instance, when a project initiates a marketing campaign through the platform’s dashboard, the advertising content is often subject to automated and manual reviews before it goes live. This process checks for compliance with predefined rules concerning language, visual assets, and the data backing any performance claims. This isn’t a one-time check; ongoing monitoring ensures that live campaigns continue to meet the standards. The system is designed to be proactive, aiming to catch potential issues before they can affect users, rather than just reacting to complaints.
Prohibited Content and High-Risk Categories
A significant portion of the advertising policy is dedicated to clearly outlining what is strictly forbidden. This list is extensive and reflects both legal requirements and community standards. The absolute prohibitions include:
- Financial Misrepresentation: Projects cannot advertise guaranteed returns, unrealistic APY percentages without clear, disclaimed risk factors, or any promise of profit that could be construed as a securities offering. All staking or yield-farming promotions must include clear language about impermanent loss and market volatility.
- Plagiarism and Impersonation: Using another project’s logos, code, brand names, or key art without explicit, verifiable permission is grounds for immediate content removal. This extends to creating fake social media accounts that impersonate well-known figures or projects in the crypto space.
- Harmful or Illegal Activities: Any promotion linked to malware, phishing schemes, Ponzi schemes, or any form of financial fraud is banned. This also covers content that promotes violence, hate speech, or illegal substances.
- Unverified Claims: Advertising a smart contract as “audited” without providing a direct, working link to the full audit report from a recognized firm is not permitted. Vague terms like “highly secure” must be substantiated.
Beyond these clear bans, there are high-risk categories that face heightened scrutiny. Advertising for Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs), Initial DEX Offerings (IDOs), or any form of new token launch must pass an additional layer of verification. The project team must provide proof of KYC (Know Your Customer) procedures for its core members, a detailed whitepaper, and clear tokenomics that are publicly accessible. The platform’s moderators will examine the project’s smart contracts and the legitimacy of its backing entities more rigorously than for an established dApp, for example.
Data-Driven Requirements for Promotional Claims
One of the most detailed aspects of the policy revolves around the use of data in advertisements. You can’t just say your game is “the fastest” or your DeFi protocol has “the lowest fees”; you have to prove it with real, verifiable data. The policies mandate that any comparative or superlative claim must be backed by on-chain data or other objective metrics that are accessible to the public.
For example, consider a project advertising its transaction speed. A compliant ad would look like this:
| Claim Type | Non-Compliant Example | Compliant Example | Required Data Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speed | “Instant transactions!” | “Average finality of 1.2 seconds based on 10,000 mainnet transactions.” | Link to a block explorer query or the project’s own publicly verifiable analytics dashboard. |
| Fees | “Cheapest swaps on Fantom.” | “Average swap fee of 0.3% compared to the Fantom ecosystem average of 0.5%.” | Data from a reliable aggregator like DefiLlama or a transparent, on-chain calculation method. |
| User Base | “The most popular game.” | “Over 50,000 unique active wallets in the last 30 days.” | On-chain data from DappRadar or similar services, not just internal analytics. |
This emphasis on data prevents a “race to the bottom” where projects compete with increasingly exaggerated and unverifiable claims. It forces marketers to focus on genuine technological advantages rather than hollow hype, which in turn empowers users to make more informed decisions. The policy explicitly states that the burden of proof lies with the advertiser, not the user or the platform.
Targeting and Community Engagement Rules
How you advertise is just as important as what you advertise. The policies include specific guidelines on ethical user targeting and community management. Spam-like behavior is a major focus. This includes, but is not limited to:
- Mass-mentioning or direct-messaging users on Telegram or Discord without their explicit consent (opt-in).
- Creating low-effort, repetitive posts across multiple social channels solely for airdrop farming or visibility.
- Using bots or automated systems to artificially inflate engagement metrics on Twitter (X) or other social platforms.
The platform encourages a “subscriber-first” approach. Instead of blasting announcements to everyone, projects are advised to use targeted announcements for users who have specifically opted into certain notification categories (e.g., “technical updates,” “governance proposals,” “NFT drops”). Furthermore, the policy dictates that any community moderation on a project’s official channels (like Discord) must be conducted fairly. Banning users for raising legitimate criticisms or asking difficult questions is considered a violation of the spirit of the advertising policy, which values transparency and open communication. Projects are expected to have a published code of conduct for their moderators.
Enforcement, Penalties, and the Appeals Process
The enforcement mechanism is tiered and transparent. When a potential violation is identified—either through automated systems, user reports, or manual review—the project team is notified with a detailed explanation of the alleged breach. They are typically given a short window, often 24-48 hours, to rectify the issue, such as by editing an ad or providing missing documentation.
For more severe or repeat violations, a penalty system is enforced. The structure is generally as follows:
| Violation Severity | First Offense | Second Offense | Major/Repeat Offense |
|---|---|---|---|
| Minor (e.g., unsubstantiated claim) | Warning & required edit | Temporary suspension of advertising privileges (7 days) | N/A |
| Moderate (e.g., spam behavior) | Temporary suspension (14 days) | Temporary suspension (30 days) & project review | Permanent ad ban |
| Severe (e.g., fraud, impersonation) | Immediate ad ban & project review | N/A | Delisting from the platform |
An appeals process exists for projects that believe a penalty has been applied in error. This process requires the project to submit a formal ticket with all relevant evidence to a dedicated committee, which is separate from the initial moderation team to avoid bias. The committee’s decision is typically communicated within a defined service level agreement (SLA), such as five business days. This structured approach ensures that enforcement is not arbitrary and that projects have a clear path to dispute actions, maintaining a balance between platform integrity and fairness to builders.