Part I: Information on the risks

I.1. Offer-Related Risks

The admission to trading of $WYT carries risks related to market volatility, regulatory uncertainties, and trading conditions. Although the token is backed by a limited total supply, and includes mechanisms for secondary market rebuying and periodic token burning aimed at supporting price stability, volatility remains a possibility.

Market fluctuations can still occur due to changes in investor sentiment, broader economic trends, or speculative activity. The combination of fixed supply and deflationary mechanisms may help mitigate extreme price swings, but cannot fully eliminate short-term or unexpected volatility. Regulatory developments or changes in market infrastructure could also affect trading and token accessibility in certain jurisdictions.

I.2. Issuer-Related Risks

Wow My Token ($WYT) is issued by a defined legal entity, and while it benefits from asset backing and transparent tokenomics, it remains subject to issuer-related risks. These may include:

(a) The functioning of the project depends on the ongoing operations, competence, and financial soundness of the issuer and its affiliated entities. Disruptions in business continuity, management decisions, or external events affecting the issuer could impact the token’s viability and performance. As the issuer operates under applicable EU and local financial regulations, changes in the regulatory landscape may affect the issuer’s ability to continue offering services or require significant compliance adjustments. Jurisdictional restrictions or evolving classification of tokens could also affect accessibility for users or trading platforms.

(b) While the issuer may implement defined governance procedures, including reporting and audit practices, centralised control can give rise to concerns around decision-making transparency, potential conflicts of interest, or lack of stakeholder representation.

(c) The issuer’s responsibility for managing the reserve assets and operational infrastructure entails risks such as cybersecurity breaches, loss or mismanagement of funds, and dependency on third-party custodians or service providers.

Although $WYT is structured to mitigate some of these risks through real-asset backing, controlled issuance, and buyback mechanisms, these protections cannot fully eliminate the risks inherent to a centralised issuer framework.

I.3. Crypto-Assets-Related Risks

$WYT carries risks, including:

Market Risk: $WYT price is volatile, influenced by macroeconomic factors, regulatory developments, and technological advancements. Price fluctuations can result in significant gains or losses.

Liquidity Risk: $WYT has deep liquidity across multiple exchanges and DeFi platforms, but extreme market conditions or regulatory actions could impact market accessibility and trading volumes.

Custodial and Self-Custody Risk: $WYT ownership requires secure private key management. Loss of private keys results in permanent loss of assets. Users storing $WYT on centralized platforms face counterparty risks, including exchange insolvency, hacks, or regulatory intervention.

Regulatory and Taxation Risks: $WYT operates in multiple regulatory jurisdictions, each with different rules regarding taxation, securities classification, and compliance requirements.

Network Security and Governance Risks: $WYT operates on a SOL’s Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus mechanism that relies on validators securing the network. Risks include potential validator centralization, governance disputes over protocol upgrades, or unforeseen security vulnerabilities in smart contract execution.

Quantum Computing Threats: Advances in quantum computing may pose long-term risks to cryptographic security, potentially impacting $WYT that relies on SOL’s key management and transaction signing mechanisms.

I.4. Project Implementation-Related Risks

While $WYT is backed by real-world assets and designed with mechanisms to enhance long-term value stability, its implementation is still susceptible to a number of inherent risks pertaining to both blockchain infrastructure and integration of real assets.

Governance and Protocol Risks: Although $WYT does not depend on a permissionless, decentralized network like SOL, ETH, POL, it is nevertheless constructed on a technology stack that may evolve over time. Upgrades to the smart contract infrastructure of the token or underlying platform technology may necessitate the coordination of stakeholders, which may lead to technical delays or governance tensions.

Market and Liquidity Risks: Despite the asset-backing, $WYT remains exposed to general digital asset market volatility, especially in secondary markets. Changes in investor sentiment, macroeconomic uncertainty, or technology events affecting token platforms can affect liquidity, trading dynamics, and perceived value.

Centralization Risks: Depending on the custody arrangement of the backing assets and the administrative structure of token issuance and redemption, centralization risks may emerge. These may be relevant to the concentration of control within key operational entities, which creates dependencies requiring robust governance and oversight.

Technological and Security Risks: Smart contract-based systems, while audited and constructed with safeguards in place, can still remain susceptible to unidentified bugs, exploits, or compatibility issues with other systems. Additionally, the long-term implications of advancements in cryptographic attack vectors, including quantum computing, remain an evolving threat to all blockchain-based systems.

I.5. Technology-Related Risks

$WYT is based in Solana’s blockchain, which infrastructure is designed for high-speed transaction processing and scalability, but it carries certain technology-related risks that could impact network security, decentralization, and reliability. These risks include potential software vulnerabilities, validator infrastructure dependencies, transaction congestion, and interoperability challenges.

Network Security and Potential Attacks

Solana’s Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus with Tower BFT is designed to be secure against known attack vectors as long as less than one-third of stake is controlled by malicious entities. However, evolving attack strategies could introduce new risks. One such scenario is a long-range attack, where an attacker gains control of old validator keys to attempt a deep chain reorganization. While Solana mitigates this through economic disincentives, validator warm-ups, and slashing risks, a coordinated attack or a zero-day exploit affecting multiple validators simultaneously could lead to double-signing or network forks. Though highly unlikely, such an event could disrupt consensus and require emergency protocol intervention.

Software Bugs and Protocol Vulnerabilities

As with any complex software, critical bugs in Solana’s core protocol could lead to network disruptions, security vulnerabilities, or unintended economic consequences. A severe exploit—such as one allowing bypassing of signature verification or unauthorized SOL minting—would have major implications for the network. While no such vulnerabilities have been exploited at the base layer, past software issues have contributed to temporary network outages. Solana employs security audits and formal verification techniques for critical components, but not the entire codebase. The use of high-performance programming languages like Rust and C introduces additional complexity, making thorough security testing essential to prevent exploits.

Validator Hardware Centralization and Infrastructure Dependence

Solana’s validators require high-performance hardware, including multi-core CPUs, large memory capacity, and NVMe SSDs, making it more expensive to participate in block validation compared to other PoS networks. Due to these requirements, many validators operate in data centers or cloud services, with a significant portion hosted on platforms like AWS. If a major cloud provider were to suspend or restrict access to Solana nodes, a substantial number of validators could be affected, potentially leading to temporary network instability or increased centralization risks. Additionally, high operational costs (~$800-$1,200 per month) may discourage broader participation, especially if SOL’s price declines, potentially reducing the number of independent validators securing the network.

Dependency on Key Infrastructure Components

Beyond validators, Solana also relies on Remote Procedure Call (RPC) nodes to serve as intermediaries between users and the blockchain. If major RPC providers experience downtime or are compromised, users may be unable to submit transactions or retrieve blockchain data, even if the network remains operational. Additionally, services like Solana Beach, Solscan, and block explorers play a role in network visibility—if these tools provide incorrect data or go offline, it could create confusion among users, even though it would not affect the blockchain itself. To address these concerns, Solana is working to decentralize RPC services and encourage community-operated nodes.

Transaction Spam, Network Congestion, and Denial-of-Service (DoS) Risks

Solana’s high throughput does not make it immune to transaction spam. In previous cases, bots flooding the network during NFT mints or DeFi events have led to congestion, causing delayed transactions and degraded user experience. While the network remained functional, congestion significantly impacted usability. To counter this, Solana has implemented stake-weighted quality-of-service (QoS) mechanisms and prioritization fees, giving preference to transactions from staked accounts. However, adversaries may develop new spam strategies, such as exploiting computationally expensive smart contracts to slow down validators. Since network resilience against DoS attacks is an ongoing challenge, Solana may need further optimizations, dynamic fee markets, or additional congestion controls.

Censorship Resistance vs. Regulatory Compliance

As a decentralized blockchain, Solana aims to be censorship-resistant, but external pressures on large validators or staking providers could introduce risks. Similar to how some Ethereum validators began filtering Tornado Cash transactions after regulatory sanctions, large institutional validators or staking pools on Solana could, under certain circumstances, be pressured to exclude transactions from sanctioned addresses. If a significant portion of the network engaged in censorship, it could lead to fragmentation of network participation, delays in transaction confirmations, or governance discussions about countermeasures such as slashing penalties for censoring validators.

Smart Contract Risks in Core Programs

Solana’s on-chain system programs, such as the System Program (account creation), Stake Program, and Token Program, are fundamental to blockchain operations. While these programs are designed with higher security standards than typical DeFi smart contracts, they are still susceptible to potential bugs. A vulnerability in a core system program—such as an exploit allowing unauthorized unstaking of SOL—could lead to significant financial losses or network disruptions. These programs undergo audits and strict security reviews, but the possibility of future vulnerabilities remains a risk.

Interoperability and Cross-Chain Risks

Solana does not natively support cross-chain interactions and relies on bridging protocols to connect with other blockchains. Historically, bridges have been a major attack vector in the crypto space, with past incidents resulting in significant losses due to hacks or exploited vulnerabilities. If a cross-chain bridge used by Solana were to be compromised, assets bridged to Solana could lose backing, affecting dApps and liquidity pools that rely on them. Future interoperability solutions, such as direct

integrations with Cosmos IBC or Ethereum bridges, could introduce additional technical and security challenges that need careful management..

I.6. Mitigation Measures

The Wow My Token has a systematic structure of mitigation measures that are designed to address major risks typical of digital asset issuance and secondary market price volatility. Firstly, the token is an operational revenue-driven demand mechanism without any redemption or claim rights with real-world reserves, which constitute the economic foundation of its worth. This is a kind of anchoring mechanism that distinguishes $WYT from totally speculative tokens and provides greater market confidence.

Also, the supply of $WYT is limited in total and a buyback and burn protocol is employed on a systematic basis to reduce circulating supply over time. The buyback and burn protocol is doing two things: it supports long-term pricing by combating inflationary pressure, and it creates an economic incentive for holding the token by maintaining scarcity over the long term.

Regulatory and governance levels, the issuer has adopted a compliance approach, subjecting its business and pools of assets to periodic legal oversight. This ensures ongoing alignment with applicable financial regulations, particularly the European legal framework. Internal corporate governance arrangements are in place for protection against operational risk and conflict of interest.

Smart contract design is subject to third-party review and includes fallback and recovery provisions that minimize the incidence and impact of technical failures. The issuer similarly depends on diversified custodial arrangements and exercises rigorous internal controls to protect reserve assets and investor interests.

Collectively, these provisions are intended not just to contain systemic and project-related risks, but to create conditions for sustainable development and responsible secondary market trading.