"On-chain" or just a public spreadsheet?
A viral takedown listed everything one NFT project claimed but didn't have: ownership verification, blockchain connection, smart contracts, cryptographic signatures, irrefutable proof. It was, literally, an Excel file. Funny — but also a perfect teaching moment. Here is the actual difference, demonstrated.
The tamper test
Run the experiment
Claim vs reality checklist
| Claimed feature | What it requires | Blockchain | Shared spreadsheet |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership verification | Keys: only the private-key holder can move the asset | Yes | No — anyone with edit access "owns" everything |
| Tamper evidence | Hash-linked history | Yes — edits break the chain | No — edits are silent |
| Cryptographic signatures | Public-key cryptography per transaction | Yes | No — a cell has no signature |
| Smart contracts | Code executed by the network itself | Yes | No — formulas run on whoever's laptop |
| Irrefutable proof | Thousands of independent copies agreeing | Yes (consensus) | No — one file, one admin |
Verify any project in 3 minutes
Ask for the contract address
A real NFT collection has a contract address you can open on a public explorer (Etherscan, Solscan). No address, no chain — end of conversation.
Check a transaction
Pick any claimed sale and find its transaction hash. Real: a signed transfer with block number and fee. Fake: "trust us," a screenshot, or a spreadsheet row.
Test the signature
Ask the team to sign a message from the deployer wallet (a standard, free operation). Anyone who actually controls the project can do it in 30 seconds.