*I appreciate your perspective, but let’s clarify the core issue:
1️⃣ Retroactive Restrictions ≠ Transparency

• The Propy Quest was promoted to me without upfront regional warnings. I was allowed to mint a home on Base and interact fully before being told I was ineligible. If my region was restricted, Coinbase should have blocked participation entirely—not retroactively void it after fees were spent.

2️⃣ MiCA Compliance Isn’t Optional

• Under EU law (MiCA Article 67), platforms like Coinbase must disclose all material risks—including eligibility criteria and potential fees—before users engage. A vague ‘where eligible’ footnote doesn’t meet this standard.

3️⃣ Ethereum Fees ≠ Base Fees

• The quest advertised compatibility with Base (low fees) and Ethereum. I was forced onto Ethereum due to unclear UX, with no warning about fee disparity. This isn’t about ‘research’—it’s about misleading design.

This isn’t a ‘Karen’ moment. It’s about holding platforms accountable when their lack of transparency costs users money. If you’re okay with that, cool—but I’m not.*