Documentation

Everything Reapers does, written out properly. If something here contradicts what a Discord message told you, this page is the one to trust, and the contract is the one to trust over this page.

What this is

Reapers is a collection of 3,000 NFTs on Ink with a token called REAP. Each reaper can be switched on by burning REAP. While it is on it receives a share of everything the engine collects, paid in real assets rather than in more REAP.

The design borrows openly from Stackers, which has worked on this chain in a way that is measurable rather than promised. Where we differ is said plainly further down.

Supply

• 3,000 reapers. 2,985 generated from weighted trait tables, 15 written by hand.
• Free mint, capped per wallet. The first thing anyone spends is the 25,000 REAP that activates a reaper, not a mint fee.
• 1,000,000,000 REAP. Fixed. There is no mint function after deploy.
• No team allocation. Treasury holdings are visible on chain and listed in the footer.

Supply only ever falls. Every activation, every reactivation, every rung climb and every sacrifice burns REAP, and sacrifices destroy reapers as well. Nothing in the system issues either one. One honest footnote: REAP burns are sent to the dead address rather than through a burn function, because the launchpad's token may not have one. The tokens are equally gone, but totalSupply on an explorer will still count them, so measure burns by that address's balance - which is what our own figures do.

Activation

A newly minted reaper is dormant. It earns nothing. Burning 25,000 REAP activates it at 1x. The tokens go to the dead address, not to the treasury and not to a staking pool. They are gone.

Costs are fixed in REAP rather than pegged to a dollar amount. As the token appreciates the burn gets more expensive in real terms, so the sink tightens on its own instead of loosening.

Dormancy on transfer

Any transfer sets a reaper back to dormant. Sale, gift, moving between your own wallets, all of it. The new holder burns 25,000 REAP to switch it on again.

This is the most important mechanic in the project and the one most likely to annoy you the first time it happens, so here is the reasoning in full. Flipping is the most common thing that happens to an NFT. Most collections treat that churn as a cost. This one charges for it. Every flip destroys supply permanently, which means the people trading in and out are the ones funding the floor that holders stand on.

Your tier survives the transfer. Everything burned to climb the ladder stays attached to the token. Upgrade spending is not sunk, it is part of what the next buyer is paying you for.

Moving a reaper between two of your own wallets costs you a full reactivation. There is no allowlist for this and no way for us to grant one, because the same exemption would let a flipper route sales through a friendly address.

Tiers and multipliers

A reaper's share of every distribution is proportional to its multiplier against the total multiplier of every active reaper. Tiers are bought by burning REAP.

Switching a reaper on costs 25,000 REAP and earns at a plain 1.00x. There is no rung to buy first and nothing to climb before it starts paying. The rungs sit above that as an optional thing, and upgrading costs the difference rather than the full price again. The ladder is priced worse than linear on purpose: the top rung is 25 times the total spend of a plainly activated reaper and returns 3.2 times the multiplier. Read as an investment it is a poor trade, and it is meant to be. It is a supply sink for people who want size, and calling it anything else would be dishonest. It is deliberately no steeper than that, though - StonkBrokers charge 25x for 3.33x and people climb it, so a ladder priced past that is not a bigger sink, it is a rung nobody buys.

Sacrifice

Two reapers, one survives. The multipliers add together: everything the burned reaper carried above 1x lands on the survivor, plus a permanent +25% for the act itself. A rung two fed a rung two comes out at 3.85x, and a rung three fed a rung three comes out at 5.65x. Nothing you spent on the burned one is thrown away. A reaper can absorb at most two others, ever.

• First sacrifice: 50,000 REAP
• Second sacrifice: 250,000 REAP
• Third: not possible, enforced in the contract

You choose both tokens explicitly, and the site asks you to confirm the one being destroyed by name. The count is written to the token's metadata, so a reaper that has absorbed others shows it publicly.

The fifteen

Fifteen one of ones, one in two hundred. They differ from the rest in two ways that matter:

• They never go dormant. Activate once and it stays active through every future sale, forever. No reactivation, no 25,000.
• They carry a permanent +50% on top of whatever rung they climb to.
• They cannot be sacrificed. A one of one can absorb another reaper, but it can never be the one burned. The contract refuses it.

The cost of exempting them is small and worth stating: fifteen tokens not paying reactivation is a rounding error against 2,985 that do.

The engine

A 7% royalty on secondary trading flows into the engine. A keeper buys kBTC, USD₮0 and tokenised Apple and NVIDIA on the open market and deposits them back, and the engine divides them by weight. The buying is done by a person with a key, not by the contract. The contract does the accounting and cannot be made to overpay, but nothing on chain forces the buying to happen on any given day.

That 7% is enforced, not requested. Most collections publish a royalty through ERC-2981, which a marketplace is free to ignore, and since 2023 most of them do. Reapers is an ERC-721C collection: the transfer itself is checked against a validator, and a sale that skipped the fee does not settle. Minting and sacrifice are exempt, so no enforcement policy can block a purchase or kill the sacrifice mechanic.

It buys assets that already exist and are priced by a market outside this project. It does not mint anything, and the yield is not a token we print. That is the difference between this and every rig-style farm, and it is the only reason the vault is a floor rather than a promise.

Payouts

The 7% splits before anything is bought:

The 1% creator share goes to glitch, who runs this. It is written here rather than left out because a founder cut that nobody mentions is the first thing anyone finds, and then that is the story instead of the project. There is no team allocation of the token and no share of the liquidity, so this is the whole of it.

What you earn accumulates against the token and travels with it when it sells, until you claim it. Claiming is a pull and never a push: the engine holds what you are owed and waits for you to come and take it. That is what stops a single address that rejects a transfer from freezing everybody else's earnings, and it is why there is no "paid out hourly" - there is "claimable the moment it lands".

Splits are adjustable by the owner within caps written into the contract, and they are worth stating exactly rather than in general: holders can never be taken below 50% of the fee, the creator can never exceed 20%, and the memorial and reaping bands can never be cut below half of where they start. The staker band has no floor, because where that 1% belongs is still an open question.

Staking

Stake REAP for a share of the 1% band, paid in ETH. This is how someone earns without holding a reaper. Unstaking has a seven day cooldown, and rewards continue accruing throughout it.

Staking does not burn. It is the one mechanic in the project that removes tokens from circulation temporarily rather than permanently, which is why its share is smaller than the reapers' share.

Reaping and the vote

The treasury buys NFTs from other collections that already pay yield, activates them, and collects. That harvest buys REAP on the open market and burns it.

We do not buy other projects' tokens to burn them. Doing that reduces their supply, benefits their holders, and returns nothing here. Buying something that pays is an asset we keep; burning someone else's token is a one time gesture.

The reap vote runs weekly. Holders choose the target, the treasury buys and burns in public, and the transaction is posted. Note what is being voted on: the direction of a burn, not the allocation of a pooled fund that somebody manages on your behalf. That distinction is deliberate and it is not going to change.

Which collections the treasury buys from is a list we publish and stick to, resolved by address rather than by name. Being straight about it: that is a policy we keep, not a rule the contract enforces on us. There are at least five different contracts on this chain called some version of "Stackers" with near identical supply and artwork. An agent resolving a collection by name would eventually buy the wrong one, and that is a total loss rather than a bad trade.

The memorial

Half a percent of every trade buys NFTs from other collections and sends them to a burn address. They are listed on the memorial with what they cost and the transaction that destroyed them.

This does nothing for the REAP price and we are not going to claim otherwise. Burning another collection's token reduces their supply, not ours. It is here because it is permanent, checkable and interesting, and because half a percent is a size worth spending on something that is only those things. The four percent going into your reaper is the part that compounds.

Ownership and keys

• REAP is not our contract. It is deployed by the launchpad we launch it through, so what it can and cannot do is a property of their code and not of ours. We will link it here and you should read it. Saying "ownership is renounced, no mint, no pause" about a contract we did not write would be us guessing on your behalf.
• The NFT owner is narrow, and here is all of it. It can point the metadata at a URL, open the mint once, name the fifteen before the mint opens, lower the royalty (never raise it past 7%, and never away from the engine), move the splits inside their caps, add a payout asset, and point at a staking contract. It cannot mint to itself, move your token, deactivate it, or change what a burn costs after you paid it.
• Two owner powers worth naming rather than burying. The owner can re-point where the creator, memorial and reaping shares are sent, and can turn the transfer validator off, which would make the royalty optional the way it is on most collections. Neither takes anything you are holding, and neither can touch what you are owed.
• The keeper key can only trigger, never take. It runs the distribution and buys the assets. Every destination is derived from on chain state, so the worst a stolen keeper key can do is run a distribution early or buy badly.
• Nothing is deployed yet, so every address in the footer reads "not deployed yet" rather than a placeholder. A placeholder in an anti-phishing footer teaches people to accept whatever is written there.

Security

• Checks-effects-interactions throughout, with a reentrancy guard on every function that moves value.
• Pull payments rather than push. The contract never loops over holders sending funds, which is the failure that bricks distributions when one recipient reverts.
• No delegatecall, no upgradeable proxy on the token. What is deployed is what runs.
• Full test suite covering the ugly paths: reactivation after transfer, sacrifice limits, split caps, claim after transfer, and distribution when the active set is empty.
• The site sets a strict content security policy, refuses to be framed, and loads no third party script. It never asks for a seed phrase, and there is no situation where anyone from this project will.
• Check the contract address in the footer before signing anything. It is on every page for that reason.

What can go wrong

The mechanical downsides, so nobody is surprised by one later.

• Quiet weeks pay less. The engine is fed by trading. If nobody trades, distributions shrink. What is already in a vault stays there, but it stops growing.
• Reactivation is a real cost. If you trade reapers often you will burn a lot of REAP. That is the design working, not a bug.
• Wrapped assets carry their own risks, including the issuer's. kBTC is Kraken's wrapper, not Bitcoin itself, and USD₮0 is a stablecoin with a company behind it. We are buying them, not underwriting them.
• The top rung is bad value on purpose. Nobody should climb to rung three expecting the return to justify it.