No. CGW does not exist. There is no token, no sale, no presale, no listing and no contract address. Anyone offering to sell you CGW is selling you something else.

There is no launch date. The project is at stage 1–2 of nine, and stage 8 has not been authorised. It is entirely possible CGW is never launched at all — see the roadmap.

No, and this is a hard design constraint rather than a current limitation. Identifying plants, recording care, setting reminders and managing gardens will never require a token, a wallet or a transaction.

No. Both would require the token to exist and trade. This site publishes no price, no market data and no valuation, and the simulator deliberately has no price axis.

There is none. No mint has been created on mainnet-beta, devnet or localnet. This site will never publish a placeholder or example address, because those get copied.

Earlier project documentation described a Base-first EVM design with a Solidity contract. That direction has been superseded. The old work is retained as historical context and is not the CGW token. The reasoning for Solana is on the architecture page.

They are decided for V1: the supply, the six-way split, the vesting terms and the emission schedule are approved for implementation, and this repository’s code is being built to match them exactly — they are not a draft under discussion. “Approved for implementation” is a different claim from “deployed”, though: nothing has been minted on any Solana cluster, and the numbers remain open to a formal review before genesis if a material problem surfaces before then.

Through verified contributions to the shared plant knowledge base — correcting a misidentification, adding reliable care data, documenting an under-covered species. Contributions are reviewed before anything is rewarded; submitting something is not the same as earning. See utility.

A combination of off-chain verification, scarcity weighting, per-epoch and per-claimant caps, and deduplication. It is also the hardest unsolved problem in the design, and the research is candid that a much larger project spent six years on the same problem and eventually retired its mechanism.

Not under the approved design. The schedule is enforced on-chain with no acceleration instruction. One honest caveat: while the multisig retains upgrade authority over the vesting program, that is a policy backed by a multisig rather than a mathematical guarantee. It becomes a guarantee when the program is made immutable.

Not under the approved design. Freeze authority is never set at mint creation, and there is no privileged transfer instruction. A capability that does not exist cannot be used against you.

Not after genesis. Mint authority is revoked immediately after the fixed supply is minted, which makes the maximum enforceable by the network rather than promised in a document.

No, and the project will not make that claim. A dedicated allocation funds verified environmental work, disbursed against evidence. That is a commitment about how a fund is spent, not a property of holding a token.

No. The whitepaper is a technical and product design paper. It is not a crypto-asset white paper within the meaning of Article 6 of Regulation (EU) 2023/1114, no offer is being made, and the regulatory position has open questions that require qualified legal counsel.

That the token never launches; that the rewards mechanism is gamed despite mitigations; that regulatory classification prevents an EU offer entirely; that the product never reaches the scale the model assumes. These and more are set out in the risk factors section of the whitepaper.

No. No external audit has started, because there is not yet a program stable enough to audit. An audit is a prerequisite for mainnet, and the full report will be published including findings that are not fixed.