The faucet gives away real tokens. A handful of people running several accounts each can drain what was meant for a community, and everyone else quietly gets less. This page says exactly what we look at, what each signal can and cannot prove, who decides, and how to argue back — because a rule you cannot inspect is not a rule, it is a mood.
Nothing here is retroactive punishment for using WinLEW a lot. Claiming often is not abuse. Having friends who also claim is not abuse. Running several identities to multiply what one person receives is.
A human moderator. Every detection tool is advisory — none of them can ban anyone. A person looks at the evidence and makes the call, and their name is on it.
Operating more than one identity to take more than one share: multiple Discord accounts or wallets claiming as if they were separate people.
Verification is asked for after 10 lifetime claims. Everything stronger requires converging evidence from more than one independent signal, reviewed by hand.
Open a ticket in Discord. You will be told what was found. Every action is reversible, and reversing one costs us nothing but a command.
Three independent signals. None is proof on its own, and we say so below rather than pretending otherwise — a detector you over-trust is how honest people get punished.
How many times a wallet, and the Discord account behind it, has ever claimed. Counted separately and we take the higher of the two: counting only the wallet would be reset by making a new one, counting only the account would forget older records.
◆ Can show: that an identity has taken a lot, and is a reasonable point to ask who it belongs to.
◆ Cannot show: anything at all about abuse. A loyal daily user is the top of this list, which is why crossing it asks you to verify rather than accusing you of something.
Solana records who paid for a wallet's very first transaction — who brought the account into existence. That fact is permanent, public, and cannot be revised afterwards, which is what makes it useful: a fresh wallet still has to get its first lamports from somewhere.
◆ Can show: that one wallet created another. This is why a ban follows funding edges — otherwise it would be defeated by making a new keypair, which takes a second.
◆ Cannot show: that two wallets are one person. A friend setting up your wallet looks identical. So does an exchange withdrawal, which points at the exchange and not at you. Wallets that merely transacted early are recorded separately and a ban never follows those.
Accounts that arrive within minutes of each other on separate days. A single shared burst is never reported: a faucet announcement makes everybody claim at once, and flagging that would bury the real thing in noise.
◆ Can show: coordination. Three accounts arriving in the same order, minutes apart, several days running, is a pattern that coincidence has to work hard to explain.
◆ Cannot show: who is behind them. Friends who ping each other when the faucet refills produce exactly this shape.
Where the evidence is on-chain, you can check it yourself without trusting us — every transaction cited is public on Solscan, and we would rather you verified than believed.
| Action | What it does | What it takes |
|---|---|---|
| Verify prompt | After 10 lifetime claims, one signature proving the wallet is yours. No tokens move, nothing is spent, your cooldown is untouched. | Automatic. Not a penalty and not a suspicion — everybody crosses it eventually. |
| Review record | A written note against a wallet. Refuses nothing and changes nothing you experience. | A moderator's judgement that something is worth watching. |
| Faucet ban | Refuses faucet claims from that wallet, and from wallets it created — otherwise a ban is defeated by making a new one. | Converging evidence, reviewed by a person. Reversible at any time. |
A faucet ban affects the faucet. It is not a Discord ban, it does not touch tokens you already hold, it cannot move or freeze anything in your wallet, and nobody at WinLEW can — we never hold your keys.
We publish the method, not a list of names. Telling everyone which wallet tripped what would hand the next person a checklist for avoiding it, and would put an accusation in public before the person accused had a chance to answer it.
Governance decides direction — what WinLEW does, what it funds, what it becomes. It is not a vote on whether the published rules apply to a particular person this evening. Those are different things, and mixing them would make both worse: enforcement by popularity contest is neither fair to the accused nor fast enough to matter.
So the split is: governance writes the rules, operations applies them. When something is actively draining a shared pot, an operational safeguard can go in first — but it gets written down here, it is reversible, and it is open to challenge like anything else. A safeguard that could not be questioned afterwards would be exactly the thing this page exists to prevent.
If you think a rule on this page is the wrong rule — not that it was misapplied, but that it should not exist — that is a governance question and it belongs in governance. Rules should be arguable. That is the point of writing them down.
Open a ticket in the WinLEW Discord. Say which wallet, and ask what was found. There is no appeal form, no waiting period, and no cost — a moderator will show you the evidence and undo it if it does not hold up.
We would rather occasionally miss someone than wrongly refuse somebody honest. The tools on this page are built to fail in that direction on purpose, and where they cannot, we would rather you told us.
Related: Terms of Service · Privacy Policy · All policies · Transparency Center