Evidence notebook 05
A public-chain reconstruction of VIBES: what Value Plan funded, what happened across forty-three announced rounds, how the prize and fee ledgers moved, and where the official incident account goes beyond its published evidentiary record.
Every cited claim in this file rests on a public Hive post, proposal, account history or exported community dataset. Classifier-derived findings are labelled with their limits. “Fraud,” “laundering” and “kickback” appear only as attributed Value Plan allegations unless a narrower chain fact is stated separately.
Executive finding
VIBES was not a phantom project. It paid substantial prizes and attracted repeat participation. The same public record shows weak role separation, non-reproducible scoring, an internally inconsistent payment account, one named prize pool without a matched payment and no finished incident reconciliation.
The record supports a finding of material governance and control failure. It does not independently prove every allegation in Value Plan’s shutdown notice, identify the owner of exchange deposit memos, or turn ambiguous transfers into evidence of criminal conduct.
The VIBES community produced 12,901 visible top-level posts by 1,940 authors between launch and the public discontinuation edit. A title-based entrant classifier found 1,478 accounts across Weeks 1–43, including the unfinished Week 43 entry window; 1,022 appeared in at least two.
Public winner tables and transfer clusters reconcile 47,800 HBD of core prizes through Week 41. Three rounds lack a dedicated result post in the organizer archive, but their six-payment clusters and the published all-time list remain inspectable.
Week 42 named six winners and promised 1,100 HBD within days. No matching regular HBD transfer to those accounts was located through 1 January 2026. Week 43 then drew 64 title-detectable entrants but no result post was located.
The Value Plan-funded @coldone wallet sent @verbal-d 200 HBD with the memo “Vibes July-September.” Value Plan later wrote that his small payment came from posting rewards and that its projects may not pay team members.
Twenty-three relay accounts used one shared Binance routing memo, and thirteen also used one shared Bitget memo. This establishes common exchange routing. It does not identify the customer, prove a kickback, trace the same assets end to end, or make every clustered transfer illicit.
VIBES founder @lordbutterfly became a publicly listed Value Plan project manager in July 2024 while Value Plan continued funding VIBES. The dual role is a control-risk fact, not evidence of improper intent.
Evidence boundary
Accounts, transfers, amounts, timestamps, memos, edits and shared exchange-routing identifiers are directly inspectable.
Value Plan’s blacklists and incident description are official actions by the funder, but the underlying interviews and messages were not published.
The academy acknowledges percentage fees and temporary account management while denying vote sales, coercion or guaranteed VIBES support.
Public transfers cannot reveal a private agreement, exchange customer identity, off-chain intent or the contents of an unpublished contract.
Funding and disposition
Twelve transfers explicitly identify VIBES, followed by a 2,600 HBD refund. Funds moved through individual and project-linked wallets rather than one segregated account, so public memo-level reconstruction is possible, but no complete project accounting ledger was located.
45,600 to @lordbutterfly, 10,000 to @coldone and 300 to @obaro.
The refund left @coldone nine days after Week 42’s winners were announced.
Core prizes, auxiliary prizes, promotion, services and the Live Vibes tranche.
“Unmapped” is not “missing” and does not establish personal use.
Gross-to-disposition bridge
Documented contradiction
@coldone received only the two 5,000 HBD Value Plan VIBES tranches in this reconstruction. It paid @verbal-d 200 HBD with the memo “Vibes July-September,” then later refunded its balance.
Value Plan’s shutdown notice says his small payment came from posting rewards and adds that Value Plan-related projects may not pay team members. The public record needs an explanation of which statement or payment classification is wrong.
Compare the official notice| Date | Recipient | Amount | On-chain memo | Record |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 31 Jan 2024 | @lordbutterfly | 4,400 HBD | Music Vibes Competition · pilot project · activity costs | Transaction |
| 3 Mar 2024 | @lordbutterfly | 5,400 HBD | Music Vibes Competition · activity costs · continuation | Transaction |
| 11 Apr 2024 | @lordbutterfly | 6,000 HBD | Vibes · four weeks/sessions of project funding | Transaction |
| 2 Jun 2024 | @lordbutterfly | 5,000 HBD | Vibes · four weeks/sessions of project funding | Transaction |
| 3 Jul 2024 | @lordbutterfly | 4,800 HBD | Vibes · July · four weeks/sessions | Transaction |
| 30 Sep 2024 | @lordbutterfly | 5,000 HBD | Vibes · monthly project costs · promotional project | Transaction |
| 26 Nov 2024 | @lordbutterfly | 5,000 HBD | Vibes · monthly project costs · promotional project | Transaction |
| 3 Jan 2025 | @obaro | 300 HBD | Live Vibes January · logistics and rewards | Transaction |
| 25 Jan 2025 | @lordbutterfly | 5,000 HBD | Vibes · monthly contest rewards | Transaction |
| 10 Apr 2025 | @lordbutterfly | 5,000 HBD | Vibes · monthly contest rewards | Transaction |
| 10 Jun 2025 | @coldone | 5,000 HBD | Vibes · monthly contest rewards | Transaction |
| 9 Sep 2025 | @coldone | 5,000 HBD | Vibes · monthly contest rewards | Transaction |
| 27 Oct 2025 | @valueplan | −2,600 HBD | Vibes · global · refund from @coldone | Transaction |
Prize audit
| Phase | Rounds | Announced | Matched paid | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Week 1 | 1 | 1,700 HBD | 1,700 HBD | Matched |
| Week 2 | 1 | 1,350 HBD | 1,350 HBD | Cluster only |
| Week 3 | 1 | 1,250 HBD | 1,250 HBD | Matched · handle typo |
| Weeks 4–20 | 17 | 20,400 HBD | 20,400 HBD | Matched · W17 cluster only |
| Weeks 21–35 | 15 | 16,500 HBD | 16,500 HBD | Matched · W26 cluster only |
| Weeks 36–41 | 6 | 6,600 HBD | 6,600 HBD | Matched from @coldone |
| Week 42 | 1 | 1,100 HBD | No match located | Unreconciled |
Weeks 2, 17 and 26 have complete six-payment clusters and appear in the all-time list, but a dedicated organizer result post was not located. Three result tables also contain obvious account-handle typos; the paid existing handles and linked entries are preserved in the CSV.
Promises versus delivery
A project can deliver real value and still fail its accountability obligations. The strongest part of the VIBES record is the paid prize sequence. The weakest parts are the final rounds, scoring audit, subscription accounting and auxiliary-benefit registers.
47,800 HBD in core prizes reconciles across Weeks 1–41. Week 42 adds a 1,100 HBD named obligation with no matching regular HBD transfer located.
Delivered through W41Forty-two winner rounds ran over roughly twenty months. Later rounds usually lasted 10–14 days, so “weekly” became branding rather than a literal cadence.
Partially deliveredThe launch promised a VIBES trophy. No public mint-and-transfer register covering the rounds was located.
UnverifiedAn interim post reported 79 eligible referrals and 50 signups without an entry. No final adjudication post was located; recipient histories were not fully audited for this file.
Final result not locatedFrom Week 41, eligibility required a 5 HBD/month InLeo subscription. No VIBES subscriber-revenue ledger, writer allocation or completed spotlight register was located.
Public ledger absentRules and polls were public, but raw judge scores, voter datasets, bot adjustments and final score sheets were not.
Not reproducibleWeek 42 produced a winner post and a 1,100 HBD promise that has no matched regular HBD payment in the audited histories. That post opened Week 43. At least 64 title-detectable entrant accounts then posted before the announced cutoff.
No Week 43 winner post was located. On 3 November, the title of the older Week 41 post was edited to “VIBES HAS BEEN DISCONTINUED,” after the Week 43 entry window had passed.
Incident and disputed networks
Value Plan imposed blacklists and described an internal kickback scheme plus an external recruitment-and-fee scheme. This section tests each public claim against visible transfers, the named parties’ responses and the limits of exchange-routed data.
10 November 2025
The funder says VIBES was compromised from within and externally, permanently blacklists @verbal-d and @suanetmusic, applies an appealable blacklist to @jessicaossom, and estimates damage in the hundreds to low thousands of HBD.
The same post calls the investigation ongoing. No later Value Plan publication was located that closes the case, identifies all affected rounds, reproduces scoring changes or reconciles the estimated loss.
Read the full Value Plan noticeValue Plan’s 10 November notice describes participants being offered large votes in return for reward shares and permanently blacklists @verbal-d.
The public post withholds the underlying messages and participant identities. The chain establishes shared routing patterns, not the payment purpose or an onward path to @verbal-d.
Ten publicly announced winners sent 1,555.142 HBD and 372.060 HIVE to @jessicaossom during the audited period.
Memos include exchange, Naira swap, rent, loan, collaboration, thanks and blanks. Those transfers do not independently prove laundering or kickbacks.
Value Plan alleges misleading gatekeeping by @suanetmusic / SBS Art Web3 Academy. The academy later confirmed a model that temporarily managed artist accounts and charged a percentage of earnings.
The academy says the arrangements were voluntary, contractual and educational, and denies vote selling or promised VIBES support. Contracts, fee percentages and a participant-level reconciliation are not public.
The Week 13 results post says some users voted with dozens of accounts and that one participant was permanently banned.
No raw voter list, judge score sheet or reproducible adjustment log was published.
The community record supports large scale: 1,940 top-level authors and a 522-author monthly peak. The entry classifier peaks at 323 title-detectable authors in one round.
Value Plan did not publish its onboarding or weekly-participant definition. Monthly authors and classified entrants cannot directly validate or refute the 500 figure.
Public transfer reconstruction
The chain does not identify assets received on the source-to-relay leg as the same assets later sent to an exchange. The primary shared-memo flows total 9,448.268 HIVE plus 11.775 HBD. Three additional exchange-memo outliers add 562.692 HIVE. Those totals cover all activity in the sampled relay accounts; they are not a loss estimate and must not be treated as illicit in full. Once funds enter an exchange collection account, Hive cannot identify the credited customer or later use.
Academy’s public response
SBS Art Web3 Academy says its limited “free” tier temporarily managed artist accounts and received a contractually agreed percentage of earnings. It says paid-tier artists retained account control and paid course prices instead.
The academy denies manipulating votes, charging for VIBES support or coercing artists. Public histories show a recurring payment system; they cannot determine whether every artist understood the terms.
Read the operating statementWhat the fee ledger shows
Recurring labels such as S1–S4 and month names support a systematic fee model consistent with the academy’s own description. They do not independently establish deception, coercion or a vote-for-payment bargain.
Activity and retention
Community posts, unique authors and repeat-round participation support the conclusion that VIBES attracted sustained use. They do not reveal whether VIBES created every account, whether an author remained elsewhere on Hive, or how Value Plan defined “500 weekly participants.”
Monthly community activity
Entry-like participation by round
Classifier: visible root posts within each published round window; title or permlink must contain “Vibe” and the matching week number; organizer accounts and review/result/poll language are excluded. It can miss nonstandard entries and retain mislabelled posts, so it is a trend measure—not an official roster.
Onboarding proxy
Of 1,320 community authors whose Hive accounts were created after launch, 1,027 made their first VIBES-community post within thirty days of account creation and 670 within seven days. That proximity is consistent with onboarding. A pre-existing account could still have been recruited by VIBES, while a new account could have come through another route.
307
Six winners paid
No subscription requirement yet
295
Six winners paid
Subscription announced for Week 41
222
Six winners paid
5 HBD/month eligibility rule
200
Six winners named; payment not located
Run after organizer’s Week 41 post
64
No result post located
Entries arrived before discontinuation edit
Chronology
The decisive sequence is visible on chain: funding before launch, evolving prize and eligibility rules, overlapping governance roles, Week 42 results and a Week 43 entry window, a refund, a title edit and then the official enforcement notice.
The first VIBES-labelled transfer sends 4,400 HBD to @lordbutterfly for pilot activity costs.
Inspect transactionThe launch describes a weekly Web3 music competition, a 1,700 HBD six-place prize pool, possible upvotes, onboarding codes and NFT trophies.
Read launch postSix core transfers total 1,700 HBD. The public payout record begins a 41-round paid sequence.
Read Week 1 result@lordbutterfly says he is leaving the judging seat to focus on organization and marketing.
Read judge announcementThe Week 13 result says some users voted through dozens of accounts and one participant was permanently banned. No raw audit file accompanies the post.
Read Week 13 resultA Value Plan proposal publicly adds @lordbutterfly as a project manager while VIBES remains a funded activity.
Read management noticeFrom Week 21, a 5% community beneficiary becomes a curation condition and first prize falls from 500 to 400 HBD; the difference is assigned to promotion.
Read policy changeFrom Week 41, prize eligibility requires a 5 HBD/month InLeo subscription, subject to a first-entry exception. Subscriber poll votes later carry triple weight.
Read subscription ruleThe organizer names six Week 41 winners, promises 1,100 HBD and announces the next round. All six payments arrive on 9 October.
Read Week 41 post@verbal-d names six winners and promises 1,100 HBD “inside a few days.” No matching regular HBD payments were located; 64 title-detectable entrants then appear in Week 43.
Read Week 42 resultShe denies vote sales or manipulation and says visible transfers are legitimate payments for educational services under voluntary contracts.
Read the response@coldone returns the remaining balance to Value Plan nine days after the Week 42 winners post.
Inspect refundThe old post title changes on chain after Week 43’s announced entry window. Its body still contains forward-looking contest language.
Inspect edit transactionSBS Art Web3 Academy says its limited free tier temporarily manages artists’ accounts and receives a contractual percentage of earnings; it denies coercion or vote selling.
Read academy statementValue Plan alleges internal and external compromise, announces blacklists and says the competition was terminated. It calls the investigation ongoing and estimates damage in the hundreds to low thousands of HBD.
Read official noticeRecords needed
The strongest corrective response is documentary: publish the control records that let another reader reproduce the funding, scoring and incident conclusions.
Minimum accountability package
Sources and method
The downloadable files preserve native asset units, itemized funding and prize links, aggregate activity series, selected cluster transactions and stated classifier limits. They do not expose a participant-level account-by-round roster or every transaction in the cluster. Party allegations, party responses and derived chain findings remain visibly separate.
Direct Value Plan transfers, the 41-round paid prize reconstruction, the Week 42 obligation and the gross-to-disposition reconciliation.
HafSQL community-root-post counts and a title/permlink classifier bounded by the published round windows. The classifier can miss nonstandard entries or retain mislabeled posts.
Selected public source-to-relay transfers involving VIBES-linked accounts, plus separate relay-to-exchange transfers using shared routing memos. The chain does not establish identity of assets between the two legs, and exchange destinations end the public identity trail.
The launch, rule changes, winner records, Value Plan role disclosures, enforcement account and the named academy’s public response.
Funding, payout-wallet and selected participant/relay account histories were scanned through the stated cutoff—not sampled from screenshots.
Winner tables were matched to recipient, amount, time cluster and transaction. Blank memos, typos and archive gaps remain labelled.
Visible top-level community posts were grouped by month. Title-based round classification is published as a separate, imperfect measure.
“Not located” means absent from the public records reviewed by the snapshot. A private contract or alternative payment channel may exist.
Correction standard
Payment proof, a final incident report, score exports, participant contracts, subscriber ledgers or a project-specific reconciliation would be material. A correction should preserve the distinction between a visible transfer, a memo’s stated purpose, a party’s allegation and a conclusion independently supported by the public record.