We reject more than two-thirds of the applications we receive. That's not a point of pride — it's the result of a process designed to protect the 210,000+ participants who trust us to only surface projects worth their attention. This post explains what that process looks like from the inside.
We're sharing this for two reasons: to help serious projects understand what we're looking for before they apply, and to help investors understand what our review actually covers — because "vetted by Tonstarter" should mean something specific, not just a marketing claim.
Stage 1: Document Review (Days 1–5)
Every application goes through the same initial checklist before anyone makes a judgment call:
- Is the whitepaper substantive? We're not looking for a PhD dissertation — but a 4-page PDF with bullet points and a Telegram link is not a whitepaper.
- Does the tokenomics model add up mathematically? Supply figures, vesting schedules, and percentage allocations need to be internally consistent.
- Are team backgrounds verifiable? We run basic LinkedIn and GitHub cross-checks at this stage.
- Is there a working product or a credible MVP? Idea-stage projects without any technical proof of work go to a separate track with longer lead times.
Roughly 35% of applications fail this stage. Common reasons: incomplete documentation, mathematical errors in tokenomics, or team members who don't exist under the names and credentials listed.
Stage 2: Technical Review (Days 5–14)
Applications that clear document review move to our technical team, led by our CTO Katerina Shevchuk and Protocol Architect Niko Volkov. This review covers:
Smart Contract Assessment
We review any deployed or audited contracts. For projects with contracts in development, we review architectural documentation and specification. Key questions: Are the allocation mechanics non-custodial? Is there a function that allows a centralized actor to pause or drain funds? How is admin access controlled? Are upgrade mechanisms time-locked?
Projects with "owner can do anything" contract patterns get pushed back hard. Not all of them are fraudulent — some teams just don't know better — but we require documented, constrained admin functions before we proceed.
Audit Status
We require a smart contract audit from a recognized firm before launch. We accept reports from CertiK, Trail of Bits, Quantstamp, Hacken, and a small number of TON-specialist security firms. We read the full report, not just the executive summary. Critical-severity issues that are marked "acknowledged" rather than "fixed" are a hard stop.
Projects that haven't been audited yet can still be accepted — but launch timelines include an audit window, and we follow up on remediation.
Protocol Architecture
Does the technical stack make sense for what the project claims to do? We've seen DeFi protocols with no oracle infrastructure, payment systems with no wallet abstraction, and NFT platforms built on architectures that couldn't scale past 1,000 concurrent users. Technical claims need to match technical reality.
Stage 3: Team Deep Dive (Days 7–14, runs parallel)
Our compliance team, led by Dani Hassan, conducts independent background checks on all named founders and key team members. This isn't just LinkedIn verification — it includes:
- Previous project histories: did they build anything before this? What happened to it?
- Public record checks for regulatory actions, fraud allegations, or sanctions exposure
- Direct advisor confirmation: we contact listed advisors to confirm their role and level of involvement
- KYC pre-check: founders of accepted projects complete a KYC process before launch, consistent with our regulatory obligations under VARA
This stage has generated some of the most clear-cut rejections we've made. Two projects were terminated here after founding team members were identified as having been involved in previous projects under different names that had exit-scammed their communities. Neither project knew we had found this — until we told them.
Stage 4: Business and Market Analysis (Days 10–21)
This is where we evaluate whether the project makes sense as a business, not just as a smart contract. Our Head of Ecosystem Growth Marcus Reid leads this review alongside our Head of Investor Relations Priya Menon.
Market Size and Competitive Positioning
Is there a real addressable market for what this project is building? Who else is trying to solve the same problem, and what's the specific differentiation? Teams that claim "no competition exists" in a non-trivial market are either not doing their research or being evasive about it.
Token Demand Mechanics
This is different from tokenomics modeling (covered in Stage 1). Here we ask: what creates actual demand for the token beyond speculation? Does the protocol generate fees? Is there a staking mechanism with sustainable yield? Are there governance rights that matter in practice?
We've seen tokenomics models that look structured on paper but where the token has no reason to hold its value once initial IDO demand fades. Those don't make it through.
Community Traction
We look at Telegram community size and activity, Twitter/X engagement quality (not just follower count), GitHub contributions, and any existing users or protocol TVL. A project with 2,000 real engaged community members is more valuable than one with 50,000 bought followers.
Stage 5: Decision and Terms
After all four parallel review streams complete, the full review team meets to discuss the project. The decision is collective — a technical approval doesn't override a compliance concern. Accepted projects receive a written summary of our findings and the term sheet for the Launch Agreement.
Rejected projects receive a rejection reason. We don't do generic "not a fit" rejections — if we turned down your application, we'll tell you specifically why. About 30% of rejected teams reapply with improvements and are eventually accepted.
What "Vetted by Tonstarter" Actually Means
It means the team behind the project is real and their backgrounds check out. It means the smart contracts have been reviewed and audited. It means the tokenomics don't have obvious extraction mechanisms built in. It means we found a plausible business case for the token's long-term existence.
It doesn't mean the project will succeed. Markets are unpredictable, execution is hard, and being well-structured at launch doesn't guarantee anything at month 12. We're explicit about this with our participants: vetting reduces risk, it doesn't eliminate it.
If you're preparing to apply and want to understand whether your project is ready, email [email protected]. We do informal pre-application consultations for projects that are close but not quite there yet.
