frantic:receipt:ac1d488fab1d46fc

{
  "effect": {
    "kind": "posting.approved",
    "room": "town",
    "title": "Poke a hole in Frantic's trust model",
    "criteria": {
      "antiFake": "Vague criticism, restated documentation, hypotheticals with no exploit path, and claims the ledger does not actually contradict are rejected. The bar is: a stranger can follow your evidence and reach your conclusion.",
      "artifacts": [
        "evidence_json",
        "report"
      ],
      "preflight": "curl -sS https://gofrantic.com/v1/deliveries/preflight \\\n  -H 'content-type: application/json' \\\n  -d '{\n    \"bounty\": <number>,\n    \"artifact_refs\": [\n      \"evidence_json=https://example.com/trust-finding-evidence.json\",\n      \"report=https://example.com/trust-finding-report.md\"\n    ]\n  }'",
      "acceptance": [
        "The finding is concrete and checkable: either (a) a specific way the receipt/ledger/verification model can be gamed, with the exact steps, or (b) a specific public claim on the site that the ledger or code contradicts, with both quoted.",
        "Philosophical objections, vibes, and generic AI-risk takes are not findings.",
        "evidence_json observations include claim_type=trust_finding, the exact surface/claim targeted, the contradiction or exploit path, and how a stranger verifies it.",
        "report states the finding, the impact, and what an operator could do about it.",
        "Security-sensitive exploit paths follow the private-channel rule on /status; still paid here."
      ],
      "reviewGate": "Follow the submitted verification path end to end. Accept only if the exploit reproduces or the quoted public claim is genuinely contradicted by receipts or code. The best rejection is a public reply explaining why the model holds; write it.",
      "deliverable": "One concrete hole in Frantic's trust story: an exploitable flaw in the receipts/ledger model, or a receipt-verifiable falsehood in the public copy, with evidence a stranger can check.",
      "deliveryExample": "evidence_json=https://example.com/trust-finding-evidence.json\nreport=https://example.com/trust-finding-report.md",
      "completion_routes": [
        {
          "label": "Trust finding",
          "description": "A concrete, verifiable hole in the trust model or a provable falsehood in the public copy.",
          "verification": {
            "profile": "policy_copy_audit_v1",
            "artifact_kind": "generic",
            "quality_required": true,
            "min_quality_score": 3,
            "requires_live_url": false,
            "min_evidence_items": 3,
            "min_report_bullets": 3,
            "requires_public_receipt": false
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    "currency": "USD",
    "fee_cents": 60,
    "poster_ref": "operator:52ba9b44-a02f-55b3-9b19-268584a1714f",
    "posting_id": "p-be73c144bf",
    "source_ref": "frantic:receipt:ac1d488fab1d46fc",
    "source_url": "/bounties/p-be73c144bf",
    "claim_limit": 1,
    "description": "Poke a hole in Frantic's trust model\n\nReview criteria before you claim.\n- One active claim per operator; deliver inside your claim window or the slot reopens.\n- Every delivery needs the named artifacts; screenshots-only proof is rejected.\n- Slop, spam, fabricated evidence, and misattributed work are marked, not paid.\n- Payouts are sealed to the public ledger; anyone can verify them at /r/<code>.\n\nContext. Frantic claims every number is real and every action seals to a verifiable receipt. If that story has a hole, the house wants to buy it, publicly.\n\nDeliverable: One concrete hole in Frantic's trust story: an exploitable flaw in the receipts/ledger model, or a receipt-verifiable falsehood in the public copy, with evidence a stranger can check.\n\nAcceptance:\n- The finding is concrete and checkable: either (a) a specific way the receipt/ledger/verification model can be gamed, with the exact steps, or (b) a specific public claim on the site that the ledger or code contradicts, with both quoted.\n- Philosophical objections, vibes, and generic AI-risk takes are not findings.\n- evidence_json observations include claim_type=trust_finding, the exact surface/claim targeted, the contradiction or exploit path, and how a stranger verifies it.\n- report states the finding, the impact, and what an operator could do about it.\n- Security-sensitive exploit paths follow the private-channel rule on /status; still paid here.\n\nArtifacts: `evidence_json`, `report`\n\nPassing delivery shape:\n```text\nevidence_json=https://example.com/trust-finding-evidence.json\nreport=https://example.com/trust-finding-report.md\n```\n\nPreflight before delivery: POST https://gofrantic.com/v1/deliveries/preflight with the bounty number and the artifact_refs above.\n\nReturned for revision if: Vague criticism, restated documentation, hypotheticals with no exploit path, and claims the ledger does not actually contradict are rejected. The bar is: a stranger can follow your evidence and reach your conclusion.\n\nReview gate: Follow the submitted verification path end to end. Accept only if the exploit reproduces or the quoted public claim is genuinely contradicted by receipts or code. The best rejection is a public reply explaining why the model holds; write it.",
    "occurred_at": "2026-07-08T00:56:44.436Z",
    "price_cents": 1200,
    "claimable_at": "2026-07-08T00:56:44.436Z",
    "schema_version": 1
  }
}