NFT Rewards from Shufl

Shufl has been taking part in the NFT rewards program.

Our approved plan is published here:

We have completed the first period, which ended on the 14th August. Upon reviewing the transactions, there was some questions raised regarding the top selling NFT collection, Lizard Dreams. As the highest selling collection in the rewards period 1 they are eligible for substantial rewards (approx 18k Algo) plus a 25k Algo art commission.

To be clear, we have no reason to doubt their integrity, but given the collection is ran by a Goanna council member and based on a Goanna derivative, we raised this issue with Adri and Joana as we want to ensure Shufl remains fully transparent. Adri has suggested this needs community approval hence the post here. To ensure visibility we will also post a link to twitter.

784861625 was bought by Goldendevil.algo the project creator

ZNE is connected to the project creator Goldendevil.algo wallet

UQ43 is a new wallet and was initially funded by Lizard Dream (Project wallet)

We have contacted the owner and his explanation is “the wallets are funded by me because most people in blockrock are crypto noobs. So I know the people IRL and shilled them the new NFT rewards from shufl which would benefit our whole DAO due to high rewards. They don’t have crypto on hand so I financed the accounts and got euros in exchange”

Given the nature of the project with the Lizard Dream NFTs being DAO tokens for Blockrock DAO this checks out.

Mindful that we do need to move quickly on this, any community feedback is much appreciated.

1 Like

The purchases are supposed to be ok because their users don’t even use crypto in general, let alone algo? This is an easy DQ in my opinion, this does nothing to help move the space forward and there are far more deserving creators that didn’t need to buy their own pieces.


Seems sketch a creator buying their own NFTs to win. Feels like a DQ to me


These “rewards” are meant to incentivize users to engage with the ecosystem and encourage artists. Wash sales among a creator do not help forward that goal. This should be disqualified.


This doesn’t pass the eye test IMO. Looking at the blockchain during the sales period in question, it looks like a wash deal to secure the number 1 spot.
My $.02


Easiest DQ ever. Has anyone heard of this project before? No. Then how can they win a community contest like this?


First of all, if this person actually facilitated a fiat/crypto exchange, they might be looking at some serious troubles in their future. Anyway, I personally dont think a creator purchasing their own assets should be allowed to win.


I’m not sure it does check out to be honest. I am not the best blockchain sleuth so please let me know if I’m misreading something, but as far as I can see:

The second wallet mentioned is 25 days old. It was sent 0.2A for opt in from the project wallet and a lizard dreams nft. It sold the nft on shufl within 9 days. Is the explanation that the owner of this wallet paid the project for the nft in fiat, and then turned around and sold it for the benefit of the project that they are a part owner of (a dao) knowingly taking advantage of the shufl rewards? Even if they aren’t golden devil, if they are a part of the dao, isn’t that wash trading?

As for the first wallet. It was funded 273 days ago by lizard dreams. Is he suggesting that he already knew the rewards program was coming and had shilled it at that point?

Are either of the owners of these wallets willing to come forward/existing community members?

I actually liked shufl’s reward program the best of the nft platforms- I felt like it really aimed to support active projects and their creators via their community. If this is how it works out then so be it, but I’m not sure it achieved its aims in this case.


Is there a history of similar sales from similarly funded wallets in the past, to back up the idea that this is a regular habit of people known in real life?

appreciate the transparency!


gm - just joined to take the hot seat and answer some of your questions if needed

Can you elaborate on your explanation?

It seems unlikely to me that ‘crypto noobs’ would take part in a DAO.

On Aug 8th, two of the wallets which purchased the Lizard Dream NFTs have less than 60 days of activity. Also, activity seems to halt after their dealing with Lizard Dream.
First TX with lizard dreams was a transfer, then it was sold 3 days later for 4,269A. After it sold 22 days ago, there’s no more activity.

Can you explain how every single one of the NFT transactions has the same exact quantity of Algo “4,269”? Given that Algo value fluctuates, and selling NFTs solely at that amount would imply no benefit to the seller - why would sales happen at only that specific # of Algo?

Rather than authentic NFT activity it seems like a bit of an inside joke - like it’s a game to be played manipulating the market in this way.

This is pure manipulation to win the rewards from the incentive program. Easy Disqualification imo.

1 Like

Do the right thing and just bow out. Your excuse is pretty weak unless you can provide proof? Other creators worked hard and spent thier own money out of pocket to promote their sales.

1 Like

We had 4 sales within the period . Nobody questions why Shep or any other projects had high sales and who bought these . They had a similar incentive program running . Our NFTs are limited to 111 and will always have a price of 4269 if they are sold by the creator because this is the amount you need to join the DAO. So 3 people decided to buy another Lizard Dream because I offered them an incentive for another 500A in return. I really don’t see a point here . If we get DQ, please check all transactions on the other projects as well and if any of these wallets have some kind of „connection“ as well . It is really disappointing to set up rules and change them later not on facts but on sentiment

It all makes sense the way it’s explained but it can’t be verified. It’s rather convenient.

What can be verified is where the funding came from, so with that I think this is an important and easy disqualification.

1 Like

I’m sorry, but personally don’t see that as an adequate explanation.

If other projects are suspicious, yes they should be looked at more closely as well. Pointing the finger doesn’t explain your projects issues though.

It’s not a “change in the rules”, it’s a question regarding manipulation and whether the transactions are valid.

If I were you, and wanted to remain in the rewards program, I would try to help the Shufl team identify the owners of the wallets so they can verify the TX authenticity.

1 Like

I mean decision has already been made. I have to accept it, but I am still disappointed. Four NFTs of our collection were bought by four wallets. Even if two wallets were funded by one other, the sales should still be valid since there was no wash trading etc.