checked 2026-09-20
Unnamed x402 service
0x6351c235e6f7e08f80974009d01829e5a8250d62
#507 of 521 by verified x402 revenue top 97%|
Wallet
Most of what it received went back to the addresses that sent it — 86.7% returned to its own payers.
★ 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 $973,716.91 received from 943 payers
across 4,240 payments, and $0.00 kept.
Measured
Received
$973,716.91USDC
lifetime, exact on-chain · no x402 settlement on record for this address
Kept
$0.00USDC
nothing kept · USDC only
Payers
943
exact · every payer captured
Payments
4,240
exact total
Classification — what we decided from those measurements, never a rating
Verdict
attribution evidence · no named rule was decisive · the base classifier decided
Verdict, every day we ran
Verdict each day
organic payments on all 40 measured days
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
No settled day has been attributed to this address yet, so there is no series to
plot. The lifetime figures above are all-route and unaffected.
Where it sends
0x2fc6…befe86.7%
0x08b0…1e658.7%
0x6ff5…9b433.6%
0x7747…23590.6%
0x4f6f…c0590.3%
Shares of every USDC dollar that left this address, for its
whole history. 5 destinations in total.
How it was paid
carried a valid x402 authorisation100.0%
No x402 settlement on record. Our settlement store holds none for this address. The volume shown above is all-route USDC, a different and wider measure. That is a limit of our capture, not a finding about this address — the chain sample below did find x402-shaped payments here that our collector has not reconstructed. 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.
Where the money went
destination
USDC sent
share
0x2fc6…befe
$844,272.83
86.7%
0x08b0…1e65
$85,161.76
8.7%
0x6ff5…9b43
$34,899.59
3.6%
0x7747…2359
$6,001.50
0.6%
0x4f6f…c059
$3,381.22
0.3%
These are addresses, not identities · we name one only where
a public source already does. 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
$973,716.91
lifetime, all-route, exact on-chain
USDC sent on
$973,716.91
100.0% of received
Settled and attributed
$0.00
no measured day yet
Distinct amounts
1,556
average $459.30
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
Not counted in retained
1 transfers
Separately, at least 1 transfer(s) across 1 token contract(s) are attributed to this address for tokens it never received. A block explorer will show them; we do not count them as outflow.
What we concluded from them computed
Derived figures, each stating the arithmetic behind it.
Reality ratio
0%
retained — processed
Confidence
High
943 payers · 1,556 distinct amounts
Volume backing
Low
$973,716.91 backed by 943 payers and 1,556 distinct amounts
Sybil state
clean
first-funder measured
Average per active day
$0.00
no active day
Consistency
0%
of days since first settlement had activity
Why this verdict
No named rule was decisive
None of our named rules was decisive for this address. Separately, 86.7% of everything it received went back to the addresses that sent it — it kept 13.3%.
Our rules that promote an address to a verified service refuse it above 30% circulation. Because no rule fired here that test was never applied — so rather than call it a service that earns, this page says what the money actually did.
This is not an accusation. Money returning to the same counterparties is exactly what a trading agent, a settlement loop or a refund flow looks like. We publish the measurement and the fact that no rule decided it; we do not infer intent from either.
Kept of received0.00%
Distinct payers943
Distinct amounts1,556
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 stateclean
First funder of the payers
0x224d…7f03 · contract, treated as infrastructurePayers943 distinct paying addresses · 1,556 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 2026-07-27.
Final through — · no streak.
Verdict history
Every snapshot ever taken, never rewritten.
40 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
0.00% 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.
Per day: settled
no attributed day for this address yet, so the daily panels are omitted rather than drawn empty.
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
- Which rule fired no named rule was decisive; the base classifier decided
- Claimed vs observed no ERC-8004 registration and no x401 authorization exist to compare against
- First seen first-seen is derived from settled days and this address has none
- Volume processed, 30-day no daily row exists for this address yet, so there is no window to total
- Every day renders no settled days to render
- Final through no settled day has been finalised for this address
- Daily averages no settled days
- 7 / 30-day trend a trend needs TWO measured periods; this address does not yet have an earlier window to compare against
- Streak no consecutive settled days
- Consistency no settled days
- Coverage badge coverage has no meaning without settled days
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.
