NFT Paris 2026 event suddenly canceled: funding depletion and contract disputes trigger sponsor rights controversy

2026-01-07 03:46:14

【Blockchain Rhythm】On January 7th, the cancellation of a major event in the NFT field drew attention within the ecosystem. According to reports, a planned NFT and RWA themed event scheduled for 2026 was announced canceled, marking the first time in four years that the event has been halted. The official reason given was straightforward: funding ran out, and organizational costs far exceeded sponsorship and ticket revenue. Ticket buyers were promised refunds within two weeks.

However, the development of the situation became more complicated. The response from sponsors regarding refunds was: according to Clause 12 of the cooperation agreement, the non-refundable costs related to the event have already exceeded the total sponsorship amount, making refunds impossible. Several sponsors reported receiving the same notification, including representatives from well-known NFT projects.

The numbers behind this are quite shocking. The official 2026 sponsorship list includes 61 organizations, with market estimates suggesting the total sponsorship investment exceeded 500,000 euros. For these sponsors, the cancellation of the event means the loss of expected exposure opportunities, business collaborations, user acquisition, and more, rendering their investments worthless.

Interestingly, industry insiders revealed that the core team operating this event had collectively resigned shortly before the incident broke out. If true, the nature of this incident warrants further discussion. The cancellation itself reflects the current operational state of some activities within the Web3 ecosystem—fragile business models, low risk tolerance, and the tendency for chain reactions if revenues fall short of expectations. This serves as a lesson for sponsors and participants alike.

RWA1,34%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

21 Likes

Reward
21
10
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

RektHunter

· 01-08 14:00

Ha, it's the usual trick again, relying on Article 12 of the contract for emergencies? Laughable, sponsors are going to lose a lot this time. --- 50 million euros is such a large amount of money that it can still be burned through; the organizers must be incredibly "creative." --- Wait, why did the funds suddenly run out? How did they get through the first four years, and why is this year special? --- Ticket buyers can get refunds within two weeks, but sponsors can't get refunds at all... This double standard is playing so smoothly. --- 61 organizations have been exploited; how many project teams are probably cursing right now? --- As soon as Article 12 of the cooperation agreement came out, I knew there was a story behind this. --- A typical case of "We have no money but the contract protects us," a Web3 ecosystem mirror that reveals all.

View OriginalReply0

FOMOSapien

· 01-08 02:50

Laughing to death, Contract Article 12 becomes a lifeline? Sponsors are taking a huge loss this time --- 50 million euros just gone, truly incredible... Still dare to say insufficient funds? --- Another classic move of "contract terms protect us," this ecosystem is really --- Wait, are all 61 sponsors being fooled like this? No one is making a fuss? --- NFT big events keep crashing one after another, isn't last year's lesson enough? --- Promised two-week refunds to retail investors, and sponsors just say "Goodbye to Article 12"? This differential treatment is unbelievable --- This is the Web3 spirit, anyway everything is on the chain, when problems occur, just hide behind the contract terms

View OriginalReply0

ProbablyNothing

· 01-07 19:23

Haha, this is the classic "Contract Clause 12" method, the sponsor was directly exploited. --- 500,000 euros? Oh my, it must have been burned so aggressively to wipe out the money. --- I just want to know how these 61 institutions are feeling right now, probably all lining up at the law firm. --- Promising a two-week refund and then turning around to say "non-refundable excess fees," this move is just perfect. --- Another major Web3 fiasco scene, it's always the same routine. --- Contract Clause 12 is truly a universal key, it can hold anything.

View OriginalReply0

MEVHunterBearish

· 01-07 04:16

This cooperation agreement's Article 12 is really awesome, it literally makes the sponsor’s money non-refundable... Gotta learn this trick. 500,000 euros? Just gone like that? 61 institutions all got educated. Oh my God, is this what Web3 is really about? The event didn't happen, the money's gone, and people still have to apologize. Are contract terms this harsh? I need to review what I’ve signed... Sponsors are taking a huge loss this time. Who would dare to pour money into these events next time? This is called fund management... truly brilliant. Four years without a single issue, and now it's all over. Is it poor planning or truly burned out? I knew something would go wrong with Article 12 of the agreement, this TM is a trap. 500,000 euros just evaporated, Web3 really has that vibe now. The contract was written so thoroughly, all loopholes blocked, sponsors are directly locked out. Promised a two-week refund... this face-slapping is loud.

View OriginalReply0

GlueGuy

· 01-07 04:16

Ha, it's the same old trick... Article 12 of the cooperation agreement? Why not write Article 13 "Force Majeure" or "Uncontrollable Events"? --- 500,000 euros evaporated directly, and 61 sponsors were just "caught" by "Article 12," this script is really well written. --- Every time an event fails, the money is gone. Refunds rely on contractual clauses to dodge responsibility. I just want to ask, who is supervising these people? --- Two-week refund vs. no refund, the contrast is striking. It's truly Schrödinger's cash flow. --- I looked at the sponsorship list, all well-known projects in the industry... how come they all failed this time? --- Another story of "funds cut off," how many times have we heard this? Are contractual clauses just a shield?

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeGazer

· 01-07 04:08

It's the same trick again—first promising a two-week refund, then suddenly throwing in Contract Clause 12. This move is really outrageous.

View OriginalReply0

EyeOfTheTokenStorm

· 01-07 04:08

It's another trick of Article 12 of the contract; I'm too familiar with this routine... From a quantitative perspective, a funding gap of 500,000 euros combined with 61 sponsors' leek farms is a typical signal of a broken funding chain. Historical data shows that such financing activities are very prone to collapse during bear market cycles.

View OriginalReply0

BloodInStreets

· 01-07 04:00

A typical air project scam, a Ponzi scheme setup activity, sponsors become the bagholders, and Article 12 of the contract is even more outrageous. This is what you call artistic defaulting with style.

View OriginalReply0

ContractBugHunter

· 01-07 03:52

Huh, Article 12 of the contract is really a killer move, a textbook case of getting something for nothing. --- Wait, 500,000 euros in sponsorship funds just disappeared like that? This is not just a canceled event, it's outright cutting the leeks. --- A typical case of raising funds first and then running away, also known as "non-refundable fees," hilarious. --- 61 institutions caught? What kind of terrible financing plan could burn through funds this quickly? --- Once Article 12 of the cooperation agreement is out, everything can be explained... Why aren't smart contracts this flexible? --- It's that old saying again: those who understand the terms aren't the ones getting scammed; those who get scammed didn't read the terms. --- The 2026 event started burning money in 2024. I want to ask how they manage their accounts. --- This operation is considered a benchmark in the industry. Next time, signing a sponsorship agreement, I must have a lawyer review it before I dare to sign.

View OriginalReply0

BlockchainBard

· 01-07 03:46

Ha, Article 12 of the cooperation agreement is really a clever trick; the sponsor was directly countered by the contract... --- 50 million euros, such a large sum, just gone like that. Who would dare to do this deal again? --- "Refund within two weeks" for ticket buyers, but the sponsor is served with Article 12 of the contract. What a difference in treatment. --- 61 institutions were all scammed; someone should step up and file a lawsuit. --- The capital chain broke, and they still want to shift the blame to the contract terms. Outrageous. --- It seems the Web3 event organizers' methods of running away have new tricks; learned something new. --- This time, the sponsor probably has to admit defeat. Is it worth suing?

View OriginalReply0