E-1 covers CAW’s economic flow. Cross-checking the manifesto against the deployed contracts, the flow splits into four streams. The centerpiece is username NFT minting = a 100% CAW burn (the “burn” the manifesto refers to). We confirmed this actually happens on-chain. As this is currently testnet, exact units and mainnet behavior carry caveats.

1. Claim (what is verified)

That, in the manifesto and the deployed contracts, (a) username minting burns 100% of the name cost (by length), (b) activity costs (post/like/reCAW/follow) are distributed to stakers/recipient/OP, not burned, (c) the operating-fee buy-and-burn is 50% burn / 50% operator, and (d) the marketplace is 0% (seller gets full price) (§23).

2. Method

3. Verdict

• mint burn 100% CawProfileMinter.mint sends the full name cost (by length, matching the manifesto) to 0xdEAD…2069. On-chain balance ≈80.7 trillion CAW (decimals=18 confirmed); 4,585 username NFTs minted = the burn is mint-derived.
• activity distribution (no burn) Posts/likes/reCAWs are distributed via _distributeAmountsMem to recipients (stakers/peer/OP) and the validator using cawProfile.addToBalance; the sender pays via spendAndDistribute. Ratios follow the manifesto and are set by the client.
• marketplace 0% A purchase is listing.seller.call{value: price}("") = the seller gets the full price, no fee or admin cut.
• fee buy-and-burn 50% (unfired) swapAndSplit burns 50% (0x…dEaD) / pays 50% to the operator. The on-chain balance is 0 = this path hasn’t fired on testnet.

4. Receipt (public proof)

The rules (deployed contract source):

# (1) Mint: burns the full name cost (100%)
CawProfileMinter.mint  CAW.transferFrom(buyer, 0xdEAD000000000000000042069420694206942069, costOfName(name))
# (2) Activity: not burned; distributed to recipients (stakers/OP/peer) + validator
CawActions._distributeAmountsMem  cawProfile.addToBalance(recipient, amt);  spendAndDistribute(sender, total, 0)
# (3) Fee buy-and-burn: 50% operator / 50% burned
CawBuyAndBurn.swapAndSplit  clientShare=totalCaw/2;  CAW.transfer(0x000000000000000000000000000000000000dEaD, burnShare)
# (4) Marketplace: seller gets the full price (0%)
CawProfileMarketplace  listing.seller.call{value: price}("")

The actuals (on-chain, anyone can reproduce): read the CAW balance of both burn addresses.

# eth_call to a public Sepolia RPC: CAW.balanceOf(burn address)
CAW.balanceOf(0xdEAD…2069)   # → 0x…3fb0d5b… ≈ 80.7T CAW (decimals=18 confirmed) = real mint-burn balance (non-zero)
CAW.decimals()               # → 0x12 = 18
CawProfile.totalSupply()     # → 0x11e9 = 4,585 usernames minted = the burn is mint-derived
CAW.balanceOf(0x…dEaD)       # → 0 = fee buy-and-burn has not fired

There are two burn addresses: mint burn 0xdEAD000000000000000042069420694206942069 and fee buy-and-burn 0x000000000000000000000000000000000000dEaD. Both rest on testnet contract constants/implementation; whether mainnet is identical is re-verified when it goes live.

5. Notes & limits

The burn that is definitely running here is the 100% username-mint burn (real balance at the burn address). The fee buy-and-burn (50%) is unfired (balance 0) because no withdrawal activity has occurred on testnet. They are different mechanisms, handled separately.

Mainnet is undeployed, hence unverified. The burn addresses and ratios exist in the testnet contracts, but mainnet behavior must be re-verified once live.

With decimals=18 confirmed, the burn is fixed at ≈80.7 trillion CAW (consistent with 4,585 usernames minted). USD conversions or supply ratios are meaningless here because the testnet MintableCaw is freely mintable (its total supply isn’t representative), so this page doesn’t use them. Activity distribution ratios are not contract constants but values the client places in each action (secured by signatures). Staking = a CAW deposit (lock) behind a username NFT; stakers earn from the activity-cost distribution.