checked 2026-09-20
Unnamed x402 service
0x38162d070d8fee71cf19c70271c2c401a627437d
#221 of 521 by verified x402 revenue top 42%|
Direct recipient
Receives payments and keeps 0.0% of them.
★ Whether any address is operated by an AI agent is not verified. On-chain records show that a payment settled, not who or what decided to make it.
Claimed vs observed
Nothing is claimed.
No ERC-8004 registration, no x402 authorization, and no listing in any public x402
directory was found for this address, so there is nothing to compare against what the chain shows.
The chain shows $296.62 received from 9 payers
across 22 payments, and $0.00 kept.
Measured
Received
$296.62USDC
lifetime, exact on-chain · 5.2% proven x402 by settlement record
Kept
$0.00USDC
nothing kept · USDC only
Payers
9
exact · every payer captured
Payments
22
exact total
Classification — what we decided from those measurements, never a rating
Verdict, every day we ran
Verdict each day
organic payments on all 25 measured days · current streak 1 day
Days we settled on chain
2026-08-142026-08-14
1 active of 1 days · a gap is a quiet day, not a missing measurement
How a verdict can change
Every change is adjudicated in public and logged with its date and reason. Nothing here
is edited silently, and no verdict is ever removed from this row.
Trends
$15.30 settled on 2026-08-14, across
1 settlement.
One measured day. A trend needs two, so there is no
line to draw and none is drawn.
How it is trending
Every percentage is an average per measured day, never a window total. A total counts a morning AQUIX did not run as zero; an average simply has one fewer sample. A window needs 5 measured days on each side, and at least $1 a measured day to divide into, or it prints nothing at all.
Measured in total
$15.30
across 1 measured day
2026-08-14 to 2026-08-14
No 30-day percentage: fewer than 5 measured days on one side of it. No 7-day percentage: fewer than 5 measured days on one side of it. An absent number is a smaller claim than a wrong one.
Where it sends
0x2415…6f4065.0%
0x25e4…392e35.0%
Shares of every USDC dollar that left this address, for its
whole history. 2 destinations in total.
How it was paid
carried a valid x402 authorisation83.3%
no authorisation we could read16.7%
x402 confirmed — 9 settlements on record. Every one is a USDC transfer whose transaction carried a matching EIP-3009 payment authorisation, reconstructed from public Base state. This is the proof, and it rests on all of them, not a sample. Separately, a sampler looked at 6 payments on 2026-09-19, 1 day ago, and classified them x402 direct. That is an indication from a small sample, not a finding about this address, and where it disagrees with the settlements above, the settlements are what count.
Where the money went
destination
USDC sent
share
0x2415…6f40
$192.70
65.0%
0x25e4…392e
$103.92
35.0%
These are addresses, not identities · we name one only where
a public source already does. 1 of them hold a verdict of
their own. USDC only — the fold does not follow other tokens.
What we read off the chain measured
Facts, not judgements. Every figure below is USDC taken from Base settlements.
USDC received
$296.62
lifetime, all-route, exact on-chain
USDC sent on
$296.62
100.0% of received
Settled and attributed
$15.30
1 measured day
Distinct amounts
9
average $26.97
Volume processed · 30-day
$15.30
1 of 30 days measured · window ends 2026-08-14 · the rest are days AQUIX did not run
7 / 30-day trend
—
a trend needs 5 measured days on each side and at least $1 a measured day to divide into; this address does not clear both yet, so no percentage is printed
What we concluded from them computed
Derived figures, each stating the arithmetic behind it.
Reality ratio
0%
retained — processed
Confidence
Medium
9 payers · 9 distinct amounts
Volume backing
Elevated
$296.62 backed by 9 payers and 9 distinct amounts
Sybil state
unchecked
funding provenance not measured
Average per active day
$15.30
1 day with settlements
Consistency
100%
of days since first settlement had activity
Why this verdict
Named rule R3 · Organic payments, no circular flow
Payments arrive in varied amounts at irregular intervals, and the money does not circle back to the people who sent it.
Kept of received0.00%
Distinct payers9
Distinct amounts9
In, out and kept — 2026-09-19
Not measured for this address on 2026-09-19. AQUIX builds this split from
two independent series and this address appears in neither on that day. That is an absence of
measurement, not a measurement of zero · the attribution is not claimed either way.
Who funded the payers
Sybil stateunchecked
First funder of the payersnot measured
Payers9 distinct paying addresses · 9 distinct payment sizes
A shared first-funder is a shared-funder pattern, so we name it.
The test treats it as a signal only when the funder is not infrastructure and covers 50% or more of payers
— most wallets legitimately get their first funds from one exchange, bridge or router.
Time and trust
First seen
Entered the register on 2026-08-14.
Final through 2026-08-14 · 1-day streak.
Verdict history
Every snapshot ever taken, never rewritten.
25 snapshots recorded · no verdict change: this agent has held the same verdict since first seen.
Corrections
No published correction affects this agent.
Late writes
No day for this agent has ever been completed after publication.
Basis
Snapshot 2026-09-20 · methodology v3.2.
Retained and processed are never summed. Retained is clamped at zero, so it can overstate but never understate.
Check it yourself. Every figure on this page is reconstructed from public Base
chain state. No API key, no account, no trust required — open the address and compare the USDC
transfers against what we show.
Notes and limits
Paid through
No settlement in the 7-day window · 2026-09-14 to 2026-09-20 · is attributed to a named facilitator. That is not the same as saying no rail ever carried its money: the lifetime total above is all-route and covers the whole history, and this window does not.
Coverage of the daily series
5.16% of this agent’s money. The chart and the day strip are drawn from that series; the lifetime totals are not, and the two are never added together.
What this page cannot show for this agent
- Name no single public name: either no directory, Basename or manifest carries this address, or it publishes several unrelated services and none of them is its name
- Claimed vs observed no ERC-8004 registration and no x401 authorization exist to compare against
- 7 / 30-day trend a trend needs TWO measured periods; this address does not yet have an earlier window to compare against
Why this agent has no name
We check Basenames, the public x402 discovery directories, ERC-8004, Farcaster, contract bytecode and published deployment manifests. Either nothing is registered, or the address publishes several unrelated services and no one of them is its name. That is a fact about what this operator chose to publish, not a gap in the audit.
How a rule works here
One sentence per rule, stating what the rule tests and citing figures already on this page. The threshold itself is not published, so it cannot be gamed. Rules are named so that a verdict which changes can be pointed at. The full set of rules
Everything else is measured, not inferred. A figure we do not hold is never rendered as zero.
