n.V5-2.06 | ESTIMATED AND VALIDATED

V5-2.06 | ESTIMATED AND VALIDATED

01| Quality determines price, and quality is not knowable at the moment of sale. Until a project is finished, what it carries is Estimated Social Impact. Once completed and verified, it becomes Validated Social Impact.

02| These are two different goods. The buyer at listing purchases a promise backed by a Track Record and a guarantee. The validated project is the delivered good. Every mechanism in this chapter exists to close the distance between the two, because the credibility of the entire exchange rests on that distance staying small.

03| Validation is formal. At a set date, buyers validate the project in writing, and that signature releases the Validation Bonus to the Maveriqs. Part of the reward is held back until the people who paid confirm they got what they bought.

04| The buyer signs rather than us, for a reason worth stating: a guarantor cannot also be the grader of its own guarantee. We verify milestones, we enforce standards, and we carry the liability — which is precisely why the final word on whether the promise was kept has to sit with the party who was promised.

05| Quality control runs in three phases. Before listing: plan completeness, team qualification, budget reasonability, MM360 alignment, risk assessment. During execution: milestone verification, progress monitoring, issue flagging, and support intervention where a team is struggling rather than failing. After completion: outcome verification, buyer feedback, Track Record update, and follow-up monitoring through the maintenance period.

06| Failure has a ladder rather than a switch. A minor quality gap requires remediation. A major failure means a partial refund and a mark on the Track Record. Fraud or misrepresentation means a full refund and removal from the platform. Genuine external factors — the ones no team could have controlled — are judged case by case, because a system that punishes bad luck identically to bad faith teaches everyone to avoid hard projects.

07| Disputes come in five recognisable kinds: quality, scope, timeline, outcomes and fraud. The process starts informal, with the platform facilitating a conversation. If that fails, we examine the evidence and issue a binding determination, followed by a remedy — refund, remediation or validation — with a limited appeal and then a final decision. The uniform agreement governs, good-faith effort counts, external factors are weighed, and the Track Record is admissible evidence.

08| The relationship this sits inside is what we call the Friendship Deal: a business contract between equals. Equals is the operative word. We do not lower the quality bar because the supplier is poor, and we do not raise it because the buyer is rich. Keeping our word is a matter of survival, not of manners.

09| Because the alternative is worse than failure. Without an enforced quality bar this becomes a money-scam based on pity — buyers who give because the story is sad, suppliers who deliver whatever the story will carry, and a slow collapse in the value of everything the platform stamps. IkoCiti does not do charity. We succeed only when the ambitious poor step up and deliver operational excellence through fundamentals, fundamentals, and fundamentals.

10| Which has an uncomfortable consequence we should say out loud. A real quality bar produces real failures, in public. There will be refunded projects, damaged Track Records, and Maveriqs removed for fraud, and each one will be visible to buyers who could have funded something safer. That is the cost of the stamp meaning anything. A platform reporting no failures is not a platform without failures — it is a platform that has stopped measuring, and the sector already has plenty of those.