Refund Policy (Alpha Transitional)

Alpha transitional terms — not formal legal advice. Final version pending qualified counsel. Last updated 2026-06. Contact: hello@atomi.chat

1. General principle

Platform dispute review based on "does it match the description". If a deliverable materially fails to match its description, or is not delivered, the buyer may open a dispute and obtain a refund upon platform dispute review. Disputes should be raised within the applicable dispute window after delivery (the specific period is set in the platform rules).

2. Ready-made digital goods

For ready-made digital goods, corrupted files or expired links should first be remedied by re-delivery or replacement where reasonably possible. Buyer remorse, misunderstanding of category, failure to read the listing, subjective dissatisfaction, or use-after-access generally does not qualify for a refund unless the deliverable materially differs from the listing description.

3. Refund method during the alpha custody period

For a refund confirmed by platform dispute review, Atomi returns the funds it holds to the buyer's wallet. Transactions already released to the creator / already completed will not be clawed back. This does not limit Atomi's right to suspend accounts, remove listings, retain evidence, apply collateral rules, or take other remedial action for fraud, abuse, or prohibited conduct discovered afterward.

4. Buyer-selected lower model tier

When a buyer actively selects a model tier lower than the creator's recommendation and confirms the disclaimer, failures or poor quality caused by that lower tier are not refundable. Runs at the recommended or higher tier still follow the normal "match the description" review.

5. What refunds do not cover

Unless an order page states otherwise, refunds do not cover indirect losses, opportunity costs, third-party model fees, or on-chain / gas fees. Where an order required creator collateral, the collateral may be applied per the dispute rules (see Creator Agreement).

6. Dispute process

Disputes are reviewed by humans; technical failure clearly caused by insufficient model capability is stronger evidence against a refund, while subjective quality disagreements still require human judgment. The system records the downgrade disclosure but does not automatically execute or deny refunds.

These are alpha transitional terms; the final version pending qualified counsel will prevail.