Botto Review
The most clearly documented AI art process in the category
of 10
Botto scores 5.4/10 on desk research of its docs: it documents its AI engine, weekly vote and SuperRare auction in detail and publishes how auction revenue is split. It does not state what rights NFT buyers receive, has no privacy policy and names no legal entity.
Overall
5.4/10 = (6 + 3 + 4 + 9 + 5) / 5
Auction fee
SuperRare keeps 15% of each auction
Revenue split
50% treasury, 40% Active Rewards, 10% Karma pilot
Models
VQGAN+CLIP, Stable Diffusion 1.5/2.1/XL, Kandinsky 2.1, Flux.1
Buyer rights
Not stated on the pages opened
Entity
BottoDAO; no named legal entity, no terms on botto.com
Scores
Each criterion carries equal weight. The overall score is the average of these 5 scores — (6.0 + 3.0 + 4.0 + 9.0 + 5.0) ÷ 5 = 5.4.
Pros
- Function clarity 9: models, weekly selection, voting and auction documented step by step
- Auction fee published: SuperRare keeps 15%, and Botto keeps 85%
- Revenue split published: 50% treasury, 40% Active Rewards, 10% Karma pilot
- Governance and treasury disclosed: Snapshot votes at two-thirds, 3-of-6 multisig, named audits
Cons
- Rights & ownership 3: no statement of what rights an NFT buyer receives
- No privacy policy or terms found on botto.com
- Entity transparency 5: BottoDAO has no named legal entity
- Older doc pages give different revenue splits from the current rewards page
Botto scores 5.4 out of 10 in our NFT and AI tools category, 2nd of 2 rated services. It earns the category's highest function mark because its documentation explains exactly how an AI engine, a community vote and a weekly auction fit together. The score is held back by what Botto does not publish: what rights a buyer of a Botto NFT receives, how voter data is handled, and any legal entity behind the project. The basis is desk research of Botto's website and documentation.
How Botto scores in NFT and AI tools
Five criteria, each marked 0 to 10 and weighted equally, make up the score. Marks reflect primary sources checked between 1 and 6 November 2026.
| Criterion | Finding | Mark |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing transparency | SuperRare keeps 15% of each auction; the remaining revenue split (50% treasury, 40% Active Rewards, 10% Karma pilot) is published | 6 |
| Rights & ownership | No statement of what rights an NFT buyer receives; only a suggested guideline that model terms let BottoDAO hold copyright | 3 |
| Data handling | Docs say votes train the algorithm; no privacy policy or terms found on botto.com | 4 |
| Function clarity | Generation, pre-selection, voting, mint and auction documented step by step, with the models named | 9 |
| Entity transparency | Governed by BottoDAO with no named legal entity; designer, multisig setup and audits are disclosed | 5 |
The arithmetic: (6 + 3 + 4 + 9 + 5) / 5 = 27 / 5 = 5.4.
One mark moved in this re-score. Pricing transparency rose from 4 to 6 because the auction and rewards pages now state SuperRare's 15% fee and how the rest of the auction revenue is divided. The other four marks are unchanged, and the previous overall score was 5.0.
Strongest criterion: function clarity (9)
Botto's documentation leaves little doubt about what the project does. The art-engine page says it generates up to about 70,000 images a week and names the models used so far: VQGAN with CLIP, Stable Diffusion 1.5, 2.1 and XL, Kandinsky 2.1 and Flux.1. A taste model trained on past votes selects 350 fragments a week for the voting pool. Anyone who logs in receives 100 Voting Points a round, with more for staking $BOTTO, and the top-voted fragment is minted and auctioned on SuperRare from Wednesday to Friday. The docs also say that the DAO's choice among AI-drafted descriptions is the only direct human curation in the process, apart from typo fixes. For a category that mixes AI utilities with projects that barely use AI, this is the most precisely documented AI process we rate.
Pricing transparency (6): published, with older pages that disagree
The auction page says SuperRare retains 15% as an auction fee and Botto keeps 85%. The rewards page splits auction revenue 50% to the DAO treasury, 40% to Active Rewards and 10% to a Karma reputation pilot started in October 2025. To receive Active Rewards, a wallet needs at least 100 $BOTTO staked and must vote in the round. The mark is not higher because older parts of the documentation still give different splits, 40/40/20 in the FAQ and 50/50 on the treasury page, so a reader has to work out which page is current. Auction prices themselves are set by bidding and are not a published fee.
Weakest criteria: deficiency versus not measured
Rights and ownership (3): a gap in the disclosure
The pages we opened do not say what a buyer of a Botto NFT may do with the image. The art-engine page lists, as a suggested rather than required guideline, that a new model's terms should let BottoDAO hold full copyright of the outputs. That points to the DAO, not the buyer, holding copyright, but it is not a license statement. For a project whose whole output is sold as art, this is a deficiency in what is published, not a matter we were unable to check.
Data handling (4): partly disclosed
The voting page says community votes train Botto's algorithm, which tells participants how their main input is used. We found no privacy policy or terms on botto.com, so how account and wallet data from the Botto app is collected or retained is not stated. The mark reflects that partial disclosure.
Entity transparency (5): a DAO, not a company
The website names no company and links no terms. What Botto does disclose is the governance structure: changes pass through Botto Improvement Proposals and a 72-hour Snapshot vote with a two-thirds threshold, and the treasury sits in a Gnosis Safe needing 3 of 6 team signatures. The docs list audits by GoldmanDAO (2022) and Audita (April 2023 and September 2024). That is more than an anonymous project offers, but there is still no counterparty a buyer could contract with.
What the score does not cover
The score does not judge the art, auction results or the $BOTTO token's market value, and it is not a view on whether staking pays. We did not vote, stake, bid or connect a wallet. Reward amounts depend on each week's auction revenue and on how many points other voters spend. If you stake, check contract addresses against the docs first; our guide to avoiding wallet scams and phishing covers lookalike tokens and fake claim pages.
Botto vs Art Blocks
On the current marks, Art Blocks is 1st of 2 at 6.2 and Botto is 2nd of 2 at 5.4. Botto's 9 for function clarity is the category's highest, two points above Art Blocks' 7, and its data-handling mark of 4 is also ahead of Art Blocks' 2, because the voting page says how votes are used. Art Blocks moves ahead overall because it names an operator (8 against Botto's 5), publishes a fuller fee split (8 against 6) and states a collector's display right (6 against 3). The full table is on our NFT and AI tools ratings page, and the auction venue is covered in our SuperRare review.
Who it suits
The score fits readers who want a clearly documented AI art process with community input and are comfortable with a DAO that has no legal entity. It suits collectors less well if they need written rights to the artwork, and it suits token holders less well if they want a privacy policy or a named counterparty before staking.
How it compares
Sources
Scored from published primary sources rather than hands-on use. Every figure above comes from one of the pages below, on the date shown. Manufacturers change prices and specifications without notice — if something here no longer matches the source, tell us and we will correct it.
- 1.Botto docs — auction (SuperRare fee, revenue split) — checked
- 2.Botto docs — rewards (current split, eligibility) — checked
- 3.Botto docs — art engine (models, output, copyright guideline) — checked
- 4.Botto docs — voting — checked
- 5.Botto — homepage (no legal entity or terms linked) — checked
- 6.Botto docs — governance process — checked
- 7.Botto docs — contract audits — checked
- 8.Botto docs — treasury — checked
Frequently asked questions
Why does Botto score 5.4?
It is the plain average of five equal criteria: pricing transparency 6, rights and ownership 3, data handling 4, function clarity 9 and entity transparency 5.
What holds Botto's score back?
The absence of a buyer rights statement, a privacy policy and a named legal entity. Those three criteria average 4, against 9 for how clearly the project explains what it does.
What changed since the previous Botto score?
Pricing transparency rose from 4 to 6 after the auction and rewards pages were checked in November 2026, lifting the overall score from 5.0 to 5.4.
Who does Botto's score suit?
Readers who value a fully documented AI art process and accept DAO governance without a company behind it. Buyers who need written rights to the artwork will find that left unstated.
How does Botto compare with Art Blocks?
Botto is 2nd of 2 at 5.4, behind Art Blocks at 6.2. Botto leads on function clarity (9 against 7) and data handling (4 against 2); Art Blocks leads on entity transparency, pricing and rights.
Nothing here is financial advice. Editorial policy · How we score · How we're funded.