Clear answers. Easy to find.

Global Foundation Coin (GFC) is currently developing the GFC Token / Economic Layer on Base. This product is GFC's operational focus through Q1 2027, with work directed toward robust presale and mainnet readiness. Transparency, Governance, Verification, Testing, Security, and other project areas support this focus. From Q2 2027, GFC is intended to expand progressively toward the broader system and, over the longer term, Accountability Infrastructure around the token and potentially beyond it. This long-term direction is a roadmap, not currently active functionality.

Through Q1 2027, GFC is primarily building the GFC Token / Economic Layer on Base and preparing it for presale and mainnet readiness. This includes smart contracts, tokenomics, presale mechanics, testing, security, and legal preparation. Transparency, Governance, and Verification are supporting system layers for this current product focus.

The GFC Token is GFC's planned ERC-20 token and Economic Layer on Base. It is GFC's primary product through Q1 2027. The current plan is for 1,000,000,000 GFC with 18 decimals and a later production deployment on Base Mainnet. The production token is not live yet; published Base Sepolia tokens serve only as test and PoC references.

Publicly available today are the GFC website and documentation, the Transparency Portal, and published and verifiable test deployments on Base Sepolia, including test-token and test-presale components. These represent the public development/PoC state. There is currently no production GFC token on Base Mainnet, no active public presale, and no production purchase or fundraising address. Nothing is currently being sold.

Visible wallets and transactions do not automatically answer who controls a system, why funds were moved, or whether real-world impact occurred. GFC is intended to address this gap between visible data and verifiable accountability: A transaction can document a movement, but Transaction ≠ Impact.

Not as a production system. The GFC website, documentation, Transparency Portal, and Base Sepolia PoC are already publicly available. The production GFC token on Base Mainnet and a public presale are not currently live. There is no production purchase or fundraising address, and nothing is currently being sold.

From Q2 2027, GFC is intended to expand progressively beyond the current Token / Economic Layer focus toward the broader system. Over the longer term, the direction is Accountability Infrastructure that makes rules, authority, financial execution, verification, and — where it can be supported robustly — real-world impact traceable around the token and potentially beyond it. This vision describes the roadmap, not today's active functionality.

No. GFC is planned as a long-term project with documented rules, more transparent control structures, and a charity and impact focus — not as a short-term trend or novelty token.

Blockchain can make transactions, technical rules, and certain permissions publicly verifiable. Base is GFC's operational blockchain focus: the planned production network is Base Mainnet (Chain ID 8453), while Base Sepolia (Chain ID 84532) currently serves as the public test and PoC environment. Blockchain can provide technical and financial evidence, but it does not automatically prove real-world impact.

The planned total supply is 1,000,000,000 GFC. Under the current concept, no later increase is planned; this will only become technically enforceable through the published production contract.

The current model allocates GFC across the Impact Vault, Guardian Growth Fund, Presale, Treasury Reserve, Liquidity Reserve, Ecosystem Growth, and Core Team. Allocation is a governance decision, not merely a percentage chart. Percentages alone are not a control model: What matters is who controls the assigned wallets, whether restrictions are enforceable, and whether those rules can later be changed.

The Impact Vault is the token allocation for the project's long-term impact purpose. The current model assigns it 25% of the total supply and provides for a 50-year lock structure. A long lock can restrict availability, but duration alone does not prove that released assets will be used for their intended purpose; additional governance rules and impact evidence are required. The start point, concrete technical release logic, and change authorities must be defined conclusively and made publicly verifiable before the production deployment.

The current concept provides for a 0% buy fee, a 1% sell fee, and a hybrid, non-inflationary staking model. Returns or reward levels are not guaranteed and must be fully specified before activation.

No future value can be promised. A potential market value would depend, among other things, on demand, liquidity, utility, trust, execution, market conditions, and regulatory developments.

No. There is currently no active GFC presale, no published production presale address, and no confirmed public launch date. Nothing is currently being sold.

The current planning model uses a price of €0.05 per GFC, a duration of 8 weeks, a soft cap of €250,000, and a presale allocation of 150,000,000 GFC. Planned payment assets are ETH, USDC, and DAI on Base Mainnet (Chain ID 8453). The current specification also provides for direct token distribution through an immutable presale contract. These are planning parameters, not an active offer; only the final published terms, contracts, and addresses of an actually activated presale would be binding.

The current concept provides for refunds of eligible payments if the soft cap is not reached. Because the current specification also provides for immediate token allocation, the treatment of GFC already allocated to participants has not yet been finalized. Before activation, transferability, refund eligibility, and any return, burn, escrow, or claim logic must be published conclusively and technically verified. There is currently no active presale.

Not necessarily. Participation may be restricted due to jurisdiction, identity verification, sanctions rules, or territorial restrictions. The finally published participation terms are authoritative.

Only the official GFC website and the official channels clearly linked from it should be considered authoritative. Purchase links or wallet addresses from direct messages, comments, or screenshots should not be used.

GFC distinguishes between financial transparency, governance transparency and impact transparency. These correspond to three evidence layers: Financial Execution, Governance Evidence and Impact Verification. A public transaction is therefore only one part of the overall picture.

Depending on the final system, wallet balances, transactions, token movements, contract code, technical permissions, locks, and certain on-chain decisions can be independently verified.

It cannot independently prove that an off-chain purchase actually took place, that aid reached the intended person, or that a social impact actually occurred. Additional evidence is required for this.

A verified transaction confirms a movement between addresses. Impact verification additionally requires a traceable connection to a real-world action, recipient, service, or measurable outcome. A verified transaction is the beginning of an evidence chain — not automatically its end.

Relevant status information, official addresses, contracts, and technical evidence are intended to be accessible through the Transparency Portal and other official documentation sources.

The final production control structure has not yet been fully published. Before launch, the relevant powers are intended to be disclosed so that authority is visible, limited, rule-bound, and verifiable. This includes contract, wallet, upgrade, emergency, and authorization rights. Ultimately, the same standard must also apply to GFC itself.

GFC should not use decentralization as a blanket marketing label. Decentralization is not binary. Technical infrastructure, finances, and decision rights can be distributed differently. What matters is which specific powers over contracts, wallets, governance, and emergency mechanisms actually exist.

That depends on the final contract design. Where upgradeability is provided, the controlling address, process, delays, and limits must be publicly documented; for immutable contracts, the resulting limitations must be clearly stated.

Governance participation is part of the project direction, but voting rights, participation requirements, and the specific scope have not yet been finalized and published. Community votes do not replace transparent disclosure of remaining admin rights.

Use only addresses and links published through the official GFC website and its Transparency Portal. Addresses from DMs, comments, screenshots, or unofficial groups should not be used.

No. Published Base Sepolia tokens and test contracts are used for development, testing, and demonstration. They are not the production GFC token and must not be confused with an official sale or investment product.

Independent reviews are planned as part of the security process. An audit should only be considered fully traceable when the audit report, audit scope, exact code version or commit reviewed, and production address can be publicly and unambiguously linked and verified.

Yes. Audits reduce risks, but they do not eliminate them. Vulnerabilities, integration errors, compromised keys, or operational errors can still occur after a review.

No. GFC is not intended to replace the operational experience, local knowledge, or legal responsibilities of established aid organizations. The focus is on documented traceability, governance, and later impact evidence.

Real-world impact requires evidence across three separate layers: Financial Execution shows how funds were moved, Governance Evidence shows who was authorized to make decisions under which rules, and Impact Verification addresses what actually happened in the real world. Depending on the project, the final layer may require documents, delivery or recipient confirmations, measurable outcomes, or independent reviews.

The result should then not be described as verified. Instead, the status should clearly remain marked as pending, incomplete, disputed, or unverified.

The final selection model has not yet been published. A robust process should document criteria, decision-makers, conflicts of interest, approvals, funding conditions, and reporting obligations — and clearly show the status of each of these elements.

The GFC Token currently forms the Economic Layer and is GFC's primary product through Q1 2027. Under the current model, it is intended to serve as a transferable digital asset within defined GFC mechanisms and later for selected participation or ecosystem functions. A function is only described as implemented utility once its mechanism, eligibility, timing, limits, and change authorities are publicly defined and technically verifiable. The token alone does not create transparency or accountability; the supporting Governance, Transparency, and Verification layers are required for that.

No one should have to rely on trust alone. GFC aims to make a growing number of key claims independently verifiable through published rules, addresses, contracts, permissions, and evidence. The practical test is always: What is visible? What does it prove? What remains unproven?

Purchasing a token is not automatically equivalent to making a traditional donation. At the same time, GFC does not guarantee profit, appreciation in value, liquidity, or tradability. The final legal classification must be clarified before an active presale.

Yes. Technical errors, insufficient demand, inadequate liquidity, regulatory changes, operational problems, or failure to achieve the intended impact could cause individual components or the entire project to fail.

No. Transparency improves verifiability and accountability, but it guarantees neither technical security nor demand, liquidity, token value, real-world impact, or the project’s long-term success.