MARQUISE
MUSEUM ARCHIVE

MARQUISEMUSEUM is a historical art-linked blockchain project associated with the Marquise Museum / Pimp Fashion archive. Its surviving token history spans a November 2017 Ethereum fungible token, later Waves M-I/M-II assets, and a separate NFT migration beginning in 2021. Those stages should be treated as distinct technical and historical phases rather than one unchanged token system.

The Ethereum MARQUISEMUSEUM token contract is 0xA4daaE9552Cd2390Ee1DcdD1a76BC8D0eeA22609 . Users should independently verify the contract address before interacting with any market route.

No. The 2017 Ethereum asset is a fungible ERC-20-era project token, not a 2017 NFT collection. The Pimp Fashion NFT migration is a later phase beginning in 2021.

A contemporaneous 9 November 2017 project announcement linked the token initiative to Pimp Fashion artbook/framed-print purchase and authenticity functions. Explicit book-redemption language is publicly documented by January 2018. These records establish the project's historical intent and evolution; they do not prove that every later redemption mechanic was already implemented in the November 2017 smart contract.

The surviving project and registry record describes a 66,000-unit Ethereum supply. Direct contract/RPC verification of totalSupply() and decimals() remains an open technical check rather than relying only on secondary metadata.

A current Matcha route exists for the Ethereum token. That means decentralized-market access may be available where liquidity exists; it does not guarantee a quoted price, executable depth, continuous liquidity, or successful settlement.

The current archive record does not establish an active redemption entitlement. Historical redemption functions are part of the project's documented evolution, but a present 2026 redemption program would require a new explicit current policy.

No company-equity claim is established by the current archive record. The token should not be described as shares, equity or a guaranteed financial claim on the Archive.

M-I and M-II are two fungible Waves assets from the project's later architecture. M-I is asset ERoumA2EeSYf72XNo2u9DQHADFQSRXFoVEQPz7wgTog , issued 21 December 2017. M-II is asset BS1KFNR8zrXKBEWdUUvpaP6G57Hic3aESkwK7qQKdLpB , issued 23 February 2018. Both were issued from the same Waves issuer address.

The chain proves that M-I existed in December 2017, but token existence is not proof that the mature later M-I/M-II functional architecture was already specified at issuance. The evidence sequence must remain: token existence in 2017, M-II issuance and formal architecture evidence in 2018, public M-I/M-II differentiation by 2019, and the later anti-double-redemption / 1-of-4400 formulation in 2020.

By the later documented architecture, M-I functions as the lower-liquidity authenticity/validator state associated with completed redemption, while M-II functions as the more liquid purchase/redemption-side asset. This functional distinction is documented later than M-I's original issuance and must not be backdated merely from the 2017 timestamp.

The 2018 formal filing describes an M-II redemption/retirement step followed by a persistent M-I authenticity state. Later project materials refine that architecture. The historical documents therefore support an evolving dual-state redemption/authentication model, not one frozen protocol that can be assumed unchanged from the start.

The M-II issue transaction created 660,000,000 units. Waves Explorer displayed 659,696,516 units on 12 September 2026, implying a net observed reduction of 303,484 units from the issue quantity.

That has not been established. The chain snapshot proves a lower current quantity than the issue quantity; it does not by itself prove the cause of every unit reduction. A transaction-level burn/retirement audit would be required before assigning the entire difference to historical redemption.

Waves Explorer reports M-II as non-reissuable. M-I displays 66,000 units, one decimal and reissuable = yes. M-I should therefore not be described as a fixed-supply, non-reissuable certificate.

A 12 July 2020 project-file white paper specifies a 1/4400 M2 burn formulation as part of the later anti-double-redemption design. The exact 2020 revision is strong project-file evidence, but it has not been independently established as a contemporaneously archived public document. It must not be described as the original 2018 burn rule.

The evidence establishes a Swedish patent application/examination record , SE 1800140 A1. It should not be described as a granted patent.

The current project page publishes M-II/WX and M-II/WAVES WX.Network market routes and corresponding pool links. Publication of those routes does not establish current venue uptime, executable depth, spread, volume or continuous liquidity.

No active 2026 redemption entitlement is asserted. A 2025 project update states that the complex fungible-vault/DeFi product layer was decommissioned after OpenSea integration, and no later explicit public policy reopening the historical redemption program has been established in the current archive record.

The OpenSea/Pimp Fashion NFT phase begins in 2021 and should be treated separately from the earlier fungible Ethereum and Waves assets. The later NFT migration does not turn the 2017/2018 fungible assets retroactively into NFTs.

No such priority claim is supported. The evidence can support a historically early art-linked fungible-token experiment and, for the later dual-state design, a precursor analogue or convergent economic topology to some later NFT-vault structures. It does not establish invention of NFTs, invention of tokenized art, or causal lineage to later protocols such as NFTX.

No. Historical appraisals, token supply multiplied by a thin-market quote, or automated-market-maker outputs should not be presented as a guaranteed present fair value. Market routes may be shown as routes; valuation must remain distinct from route availability.

The archive does not describe itself as an exchange, broker, custodian, valuation authority or guarantor of market execution. Public pages may link to third-party decentralized-market routes while preserving that distinction.

The Archive separates primary on-chain or institutional records, contemporaneous public records, project-file evidence, later project statements and modern curatorial synthesis. Where the evidence establishes only part of a claim, the FAQ preserves that boundary rather than converting inference into fact.