Crypto KOL deals structured around vesting and disclosure

A thread priced on follower count tells you nothing you can act on. The number I underwrite is wallets that transact within fourteen days of a placement, tagged by a referral path minted per creator. On the last round, six of nineteen creators produced roughly 80 per cent of transacting wallets, and two of those six had audiences under 20,000. What each creator charged had no relationship to what they delivered. Deal structure: Every placement is a written agreement with a disclosure clause that is a condition of payment, a defined content window, and a claw-back if the post is deleted inside 30 days. Where part of the fee is paid in tokens, the allocation carries a cliff of at least twelve months with linear vesting after it, and the receiving wallet is named in the contract so it can be watched. Perpetual advisory grants are not written. Placements priced on CPM are declined, because the seller controls the denominator. Vetting before an offer goes out: Audience forensics first: follower-graph overlap between candidates, reply-pod detection, the share of engagement from accounts younger than six months, and language distribution against the market you actually sell into. Then history. Previously disclosed allocations are traced on-chain to see whether the creator sold inside their own cliff. A creator who did gets one conversation about it and usually no offer. In practice about half a supplied shortlist survives this. Disclosure: Every placement is labelled. For EEA audiences that means the marketing-communication rules under MiCA and the Central Bank of Ireland's expectations; for US audiences, the FTC endorsement guides; on X, the paid-partnership label alongside in-copy disclosure. Undisclosed placement is refused, including when the creator offers it and the buyer asks for it. This is the most common reason a prospective client and I do not proceed. Measurement: Per-creator referral paths, wallet tagging at first touch, transacting wallets at day 14, and a dark week with no placements running so baseline conversion is observable rather than assumed. The report names the creators who did not work, with their figures, and it reaches you in full rather than as a summary. Not included: Community management, Telegram group building, market making, price commentary, or any coordination between announcement timing and trading activity. I do not brief creators on price. I do not buy engagement, and I do not work through agencies that resell placements without naming the creator before contract. Who this is not for: Projects whose distribution plan depends on retail exit liquidity. Teams wanting thirty placements inside a fortnight, because the vetting pass does not compress. Buyers who want a guaranteed impression figure, since no platform here verifies one and I will not pretend otherwise. How the work runs: Shortlist and forensics, then negotiation and contracting, then a staged content window so later placements can be repriced using evidence from the earlier ones. Two rounds is usually enough to identify the four or five creators worth a standing relationship, and the standing relationship is where the economics actually change: repeat placements with the same creator have consistently cost less per transacting wallet than the first. Working language is English. Contracts are drafted in English under Irish law unless your counsel requires otherwise.