Project status & holder risks
What the current product supports, what remains unverified, and what matters to a prospective $OLM holder.
Current stage
Oreloom currently provides a mining monitoring and reporting workspace. The broader Intelligence & Automation platform is the development direction. A working dashboard demonstrates software functionality; it does not establish that a token is deployed, fairly distributed, liquid, or economically sustainable.
The two-stage allocation policy is defined. Fee collection, buyback and burn execution, NVDA acquisition, and holder delivery are not enabled in this workspace. No claimable balance or verified investment return is reported.
Inspect the evidence
| Evidence | Where to inspect it | What it does not establish |
|---|---|---|
| Published rental orders | Mining ledger and source timestamps | An order alone does not prove delivered work or treasury funding. |
| Confirmed incoming ZEC transfers | Receipt records and linked explorer transactions | A transfer alone does not establish mining attribution or net profit. |
| Public account and token reads | Configured addresses, RPC reads, and explorer records | An address or current supply alone does not prove access controls, buybacks, or burns. |
| Reports and calculators | Monthly exports and stated model assumptions | A descriptive report or simulation does not establish future earnings. |
Token disclosures still required
These docs do not yet provide a complete token disclosure record. Missing information must remain unresolved until the project publishes verifiable details.
- The canonical $OLM contract, deployment transaction, verified implementation, and its connection to the deployed product.
- Initial and maximum supply, allocation recipients, team holdings, vesting contracts, unlock schedules, and holder concentration.
- Trading venues, liquidity ownership, any withdrawal or lock conditions, and restrictions on selling or transferring.
- Minting, pausing, upgrade, fee-setting, and treasury withdrawal powers, including the accounts or signers controlling them.
- The fee source and rate, collector contract, spending authority, approved recipients, and evidence of actual collection.
- A publicly accessible source release linked to the deployed version, and the scope, date, findings, and unresolved issues of any independent security review.
Economic dependencies
The first stage needs fees actually collected by the project. A percentage of trading activity is not recurring revenue unless trades occur and fees reach the collector. Without fee income, the policy does not itself fund new mining rentals.
Mining can produce no payout while rental costs are still incurred. A ZEC receipt or a positive second-stage settlement does not establish that mining recovered its rental costs. Full-cost reporting must include those costs once, alongside conversion prices, fees, and other operating expenses.
The 30 / 60 / 10 split allocates available funds; it does not create profit or guarantee token demand. Buybacks cannot guarantee a price floor. $OLM holders remain exposed to execution delays, treasury control, market liquidity, and the possibility of losing their investment.
Evidence before execution
An initial funded cycle should be traceable from the funding transaction to the rental order, pool observations, attributable payout, conversion, and settlement. A cycle with no payout should still report its spending and outcome.
Before enabling execution, publish spending limits, approval and custody arrangements, responsible operators, failure handling, and the evidence required to report an action as completed. Broader automation should follow reconciled operations and model validation.