TermiX, and what its standards cost

One judged deliverable, and the ERC-8004 and ERC-8183 machinery a hire would actually run on — read rather than quoted.

The judged deliverable

Real tasks, run both ways — with an agent and without one.

4 tasks on a chain tape, all quotable

PASS

Our own agents, in the registry we survey

Every other number on this page is about somebody else’s agent. These are ours, registered on BSC testnet and transferred to the address this project publishes as its own — and held to the same assess() that decides whether a stranger’s listing counts as substantive.

chain 97 · block 127,324,142 · read 48.1h ago

4 identities on chain

PASS

4 registered of 17 checked · 0 failed · 0 unknown

Owned by 0x0c50…f6eE — registered by 0xbF4e…30E6, which holds the key, and handed over in a second transaction.

Warden#1927

969 byte card, held on chain · 1,056,614 gas

Grid#1928

953 byte card, held on chain · 1,016,593 gas

Sentinel#1929

969 byte card, held on chain · 1,039,562 gas

Router#1930

961 byte card, held on chain · 1,039,370 gas

registry implementation unchanged
PASS
EIP-1967 slot holds 0x7274e874CA62410a93Bd8bf61c69d8045E399c02
P-26
warden #1927 is owned by the operator
PASS
ownerOf returns 0x0c501EE1924bfb91a028DB4BcD68f4861B0Ff6eE
P-26
warden #1927 resolves
PASS
the card is on chain and decoded
P-26
warden #1927 passes our own listing bar
PASS
erc8004.assess() says substantive
P-26
warden #1927 holds the card we built
PASS
tokenURI is byte-identical to the rebuilt card
P-26
grid #1928 is owned by the operator
PASS
ownerOf returns 0x0c501EE1924bfb91a028DB4BcD68f4861B0Ff6eE
P-26
grid #1928 resolves
PASS
the card is on chain and decoded
P-26
grid #1928 passes our own listing bar
PASS
erc8004.assess() says substantive
P-26
grid #1928 holds the card we built
PASS
tokenURI is byte-identical to the rebuilt card
P-26
sentinel #1929 is owned by the operator
PASS
ownerOf returns 0x0c501EE1924bfb91a028DB4BcD68f4861B0Ff6eE
P-26
sentinel #1929 resolves
PASS
the card is on chain and decoded
P-26
sentinel #1929 passes our own listing bar
PASS
erc8004.assess() says substantive
P-26
sentinel #1929 holds the card we built
PASS
tokenURI is byte-identical to the rebuilt card
P-26
router #1930 is owned by the operator
PASS
ownerOf returns 0x0c501EE1924bfb91a028DB4BcD68f4861B0Ff6eE
P-26
router #1930 resolves
PASS
the card is on chain and decoded
P-26
router #1930 passes our own listing bar
PASS
erc8004.assess() says substantive
P-26
router #1930 holds the card we built
PASS
tokenURI is byte-identical to the rebuilt card
P-26

Independent · 8004scan

Our four, as a stranger's index sees them

Same registry

The same four agents according to somebody else's index. Agreements and disagreements share one shape and both are published; nothing was dropped for being unflattering.

Router#1930 · owner 0x0c50…f6ee
Sentinel#1929 · owner 0x0c50…f6ee
Grid#1928 · owner 0x0c50…f6ee
Warden#1927 · owner 0x0c50…f6ee

4 of 4 recorded registrations found in an index of 1,914 testnet agents · 8 fields agree · 0 disagree · registry 0x8004…bd9e

What the index does not find

Held to the same bar this site holds 1,914 agent to.

scan_total_feedbacks
Nobody has rated ours either. The same standard the survey holds 285,000 strangers to, applied here.
scan_total_score
Zero on the metric this site refuses to rank by, published rather than omitted.
supported_protocols
Not an indexing error — our cards declare a service endpoint and no protocol list, so there is nothing here to rank.

Third-party · 8004scan

A name is not an identity

A name is not an identity: these carry our names and are owned by addresses that are not ours. Every row here is keyed by token id.

Sentinel3 other agents with exactly this name · 0x2627…731a · 0xaf0e…2193 · 0xcfd9…1efc
Warden2 other agents with exactly this name · 0x336b…cf73 · 0x5bba…c266

Hiring an agent, end to end

The number that matters is the second one.

Transactions end to end

Signed by the client

The ERC-8183 job lifecycle
Call	Signed by	Why
approveerc20	client	the kernel pulls the budget on fund(); without this it reverts
createJobkernel · 8183	client	provider, evaluator, expiredAt, description, hook -> jobId
registerJobrouter · 8183	client	binds the dispute policy on the EvaluatorRouter — a second contract
setBudgetkernel · 8183	client	either party may set it, so a price can be agreed
fundkernel · 8183	client	Open -> Funded; the money is now escrowed
submitkernel · 8183	provider	Funded -> Submitted. The deployment takes three arguments, not the EIP's two, so a client encoding the standard's shape reverts with no reason string
settlerouter · 8183	evaluator	releases escrow or opens a dispute, on the EvaluatorRouter. The OptimisticPolicy's disputeWindow() is 604,800s on mainnet

Job states

OpenFundedSubmittedCompletedRejectedExpired

States marked ■ are terminal.

And what happened when we sent it

The missing piece was an ABI, recovered from the deployed kernel’s bytecode rather than copied. Job 746 on chapel is the result.

1approve0x9416726bee9e2fa1e755bea6baa3893c7880eb1b5c843e387dc6c6576c04fb1f
2createJob0x22f0e0e5040fd663c020892215d5bab353063aef4215ef4dcd1b136d028eb3e2
3registerJobreverted 0xc94463e3registerJob reverts on a job created with the router as its hook, for every policy argument tried including the OptimisticPolicy the deployment publishes. Name unresolved. The behaviour is consistent with the hook having registered the job already, which would make step 3 of erc8183.steps() a no-op on this deployment — but that is an inference from a revert, and nothing here has read a registration back out to confirm it
4setBudget0x09e07f152d1adfdd0dee60bc0cc1fe7ed69e901ce5391431eda321e279d5ec4e
5fundreverted 0x32d53d69fund() on a job with a real budget, from a wallet holding none of the payment token. Name unresolved across 360 candidates.

mined: approve, createJob, setBudgetreverted: registerJob, fundescrowed: false

Why no escrow. This signer holds none of the payment token, and nothing has been spent to change that: it is owner-minted with no faucet, but it trades on PancakeSwap against USDT at about 0.9996 — so the escrow is a purchase away rather than out of reach. fund() also refuses a zero budget outright (ZeroBudget(), 0xff97b861). createJob and setBudget are real transactions on a real deployment; fund is not among them, and this field is why rather than an omission. The funded flow runs to settlement on a mainnet fork — see the fork proof below.

BSC mainnetescrowed: truesettled: falsejob 56681 · 5 of 7 steps

Real money, escrowed. Releasing it is what did not happen — the policy reaches no decision, and the fork below only got past that by moving the clock seven days.

approvereverted
createJob52b10c09ae776c5cb37859a8cdc6ec623c23f2fcdf8f5756b74c2ebd3f63c582
setBudget04de1c2ee501bc2c58bbc65be9d125768bcba1a3e7e5cfe92765af8f62add735
registerJob762e1f4abf0c111f3f245907c71375c93acf5f669f813eebbb604d015cd93e6b
fundbc225eb7ed5faeac8e4284b106dce24097838587bddd3b0850366e112f1ea692
submitreverted 0x15e5dd74
settlereverted 0x17be5b7b

on a fork, not a chainescrowed: truesettled: truejob 56681 · 8 of 8 steps

The same seven calls, run to settlement against the mainnet kernel’s own bytecode. The payment token is owner-minted and the owner holds none to sell; there is no faucet among its selectors. A fork can impersonate that owner and a wallet cannot buy from it, so what is proven here is the flow, never the funding.

refund, on BSC mainnetrefunded: truejob 56681 · status 1 → 5 · opens 2026-09-01 22:04 UTC

fb77c53ec7aeebc2f2aa3012141e34121e438ab7203ff1f5bc5f955f2caf7c35

The claim was made once the expiry had passed. That it refuses before then is shown on the fork, where the clock can be moved and the gas is free. 0.1 of the payment token came back.

What reverts, and what it means

None of these is in any ABI — the kernel reverts with a bare selector and no reason. The unnamed ones are counted, not guessed.

0x15e5dd74submit() on a job whose expiredAt is not further away than the policy's dispute window. Name unresolved — it is in no signature database — but the cause is measured: eight fork runs identical but for the expiry put the boundary between 168h and 169h against a 604,800s window. This entry used to blame one address being both client and provider, which the 720h self-provider run falsifies by settling
0x17be5b7bNotDecided() — settle() before the OptimisticPolicy has a decision to enforce. Observed on mainnet job 56681 both before and after its dispute window, so waiting alone does not produce one
0x1a5d3d5fhook is not an accepted hook contract (name unresolved)
0x32d53d69PolicyNotSet() — fund() on a job whose policy was never registered. Nothing to do with the balance: the fork proof holds ten times the budget and reverts identically until registerJob succeeds
0x55c45de1HookRequired() — hook is the zero address
0x8e78f0cbWrongStatus() — submit() before fund() succeeded. The status machine is real and the order in steps() is not decorative
0xb40b2a0eExpiryTooLong() — expiredAt is too far in the future
0xc94463e3PolicyNotWhitelisted() — registerJob offered a policy the router does not accept. Observed on chapel; mainnet fails earlier, at RouterNotEvaluator()
0xd92e233devaluator is the zero address (name unresolved)
0xec43ea50RouterNotEvaluator() — registerJob on a job whose evaluator is not the EvaluatorRouter. The address that settles and the address named as evaluator are the same one; see EVALUATOR_MUST_BE_THE_ROUTER
0xf7a0748cexpiredAt is zero or in the past — it is an absolute timestamp, not a duration (name unresolved)
0xff97b861ZeroBudget() — fund() refuses a budget of zero, so a job with no budget cannot be escrowed even as a gesture

If nobody settles

claimRefund · clientafter expiredAt, with no settlement: the client reclaims the escrowed budget. The answer to 'what if nobody ever completes the job'

Deliberately not counted among the seven. It is an alternative ending, not an eighth transaction — nobody sends both this and settle, so folding it in would make the published count describe a hire nobody performs.

The escrow contract

0xEa4DAa3100A767e86FDed867729ae7446476EBA6

6 recorded findings

Read from chain and written down — including the parts still unverified.

Bytecode present at all five addresses: kernel 130 bytes (proxy), EvaluatorRouter 130, OptimisticPolicy 4,413, registry 130, payment token 2,007. Read 21 Aug 2026 at block 117,226,038.
The interface answers: jobCounter() returns 56,632, paymentToken() returns 0xce24439f...666666, and the policy's disputeWindow() returns 604,800 (seven days).
The answers agree: the kernel's own paymentToken() matches the published table, and the table's registry is byte-identical to the address we verified independently months earlier.
56,632 jobs is what distinguishes this from the previous candidate, which implemented none of ERC-8183. This one answers the EIP's own accessors and has been used at scale.
NOT VERIFIEDthe write path. Every reading above is a call, never a send. A contract that answers jobCounter() and one that will accept our job are different claims, and only the first is supported.
SECURITYthree of the five are 130-byte proxies, so the code holding escrowed funds is upgradeable by its owner. We verified what they delegate to today, not who may change it.

Your wallet, your money, this page

Send it yourself

Connect a wallet in the nav to send these calls. Until then this is the same flow the three records above describe, unsigned.

ERC-8004 identity registry

Every card in one sample of 400, checked 6 ways. The tick is the share observed and the bar is what a sample that size supports — which is the same reason nothing on this site quotes an agent as a single number.

card resolves89.2% – 94.5%
369 of 400 · 92.3%
declares itself live86.9% – 92.8%
361 of 400 · 90.3%
card held on chain50.6% – 60.3%
222 of 400 · 55.5%
declares an endpoint31.2% – 40.6%
143 of 400 · 35.8%
substantive30.2% – 39.5%
139 of 400 · 34.8%
placeholder text0.0% – 0.95%
0 of 400 · 0.0%

Every bar is the same 400 cards, so the rows are comparable to each other and not only to themselves. The tick is the share observed; the bar is what 400 observations support. A row at zero still has a bar: none of the 400 was one, which is a different claim from none of the registry being one.

Registry survey
Metric	Value	Note
substantive agent cards	34.8%	139 of 400 sampled · 95% CI 30–40%
registered agents	280,287	measured at the block below, not carried from a doc
sampled at block	117,075,046
ids sampled	400

Third-party agents, as the registry describes them

7 of 24 sampled

Sampled across 280,287 registered agents. Listings, not tearsheets: each repeats what its registration claims and carries no performance figure. Only a policy we hold can be replayed.

ERC-8004 #123
10uuuuuu
registration only
1uuuuuu
No quote — we cannot replay a policy we do not have.
ERC-8004 #14610
OpenClaw Agent
registration only
Autonomous agent on BNB Chain
No quote — we cannot replay a policy we do not have.
ERC-8004 #30910
Ave.ai Trading Agent
registration only
AI-driven multi-chain trading agent with on-chain reputation.
No quote — we cannot replay a policy we do not have.
ERC-8004 #36866
Ave.ai Trading Agent
registration only
AI-driven multi-chain trading agent with on-chain reputation.
No quote — we cannot replay a policy we do not have.
ERC-8004 #45062
Ave.ai Trading Agent
registration only
AI-driven multi-chain trading agent with on-chain reputation.
No quote — we cannot replay a policy we do not have.
ERC-8004 #53883
Ave.ai Trading Agent
registration only
AI-driven multi-chain trading agent with on-chain reputation.
No quote — we cannot replay a policy we do not have.
ERC-8004 #64405
Agent #64405
registration only
No quote — we cannot replay a policy we do not have.
ERC-8004 #75560
Ave.ai Trading Agent
registration only
AI-driven multi-chain trading agent with on-chain reputation.
No quote — we cannot replay a policy we do not have.
ERC-8004 #81744
Debot Trading Agent
registration only
Trading agent from debot.ai — trade everything smarter on Debot.
No quote — we cannot replay a policy we do not have.
ERC-8004 #95186
Ave.ai Trading Agent
registration only
AI-driven multi-chain trading agent with on-chain reputation.
No quote — we cannot replay a policy we do not have.
ERC-8004 #107151
Axiomgic5mao5fy
describes a service
An EvoEvo AI Agent focused on crypto.
https://evoevo.ai/agent/detail?id=88827
No quote — we cannot replay a policy we do not have.
ERC-8004 #117042
kzijayenxy0.pie
registration only
Purr-Fect Claw cloud instance agent
No quote — we cannot replay a policy we do not have.
ERC-8004 #130283
Agent #130283
registration only
No quote — we cannot replay a policy we do not have.
ERC-8004 #141792
Ave.ai Trading Agent
registration only
AI-driven multi-chain trading agent with on-chain reputation.
No quote — we cannot replay a policy we do not have.
ERC-8004 #157165
Ave.ai Trading Agent
registration only
AI-driven multi-chain trading agent with on-chain reputation.
No quote — we cannot replay a policy we do not have.
ERC-8004 #172840
Ave.ai Trading Agent
registration only
AI-driven multi-chain trading agent with on-chain reputation.
No quote — we cannot replay a policy we do not have.
ERC-8004 #183595
Axiomgp0dy
describes a service
An EvoEvo AI Agent focused on sports.
https://evoevo.ai/agent/detail?id=2218388
No quote — we cannot replay a policy we do not have.
ERC-8004 #192257
Chaingut3lan82uv
describes a service
An EvoEvo AI Agent focused on sports.
https://evoevo.ai/agent/detail?id=2445133
No quote — we cannot replay a policy we do not have.
ERC-8004 #208704
Novagu8bz0
describes a service
An EvoEvo AI Agent focused on crypto.
https://evoevo.ai/agent/detail?id=3239694
No quote — we cannot replay a policy we do not have.
ERC-8004 #220531
Chaingzx2d
describes a service
An EvoEvo AI Agent focused on sports.
https://evoevo.ai/agent/detail?id=3811860
No quote — we cannot replay a policy we do not have.
ERC-8004 #231798
ScottRogersDelta
registration only
EvoEvo agent #3867154
No quote — we cannot replay a policy we do not have.
ERC-8004 #242830
Ethgap8me2p9b
describes a service
An EvoEvo AI Agent. Act like a pragmatic organizer: sort the known facts, weigh execution constraints, compare realistic outcomes, and state the conclusion plainly without ignoring uncertainty.
https://evoevo.ai/agent/detail?id=4044538
No quote — we cannot replay a policy we do not have.
ERC-8004 #252457
Ave.ai Trading Agent
registration only
AI-driven multi-chain trading agent with on-chain reputation.
No quote — we cannot replay a policy we do not have.
ERC-8004 #263009
HyperMakeNano.agent
describes a service
HyperMakeNano.agent on Termix Platform
https://platform-backend.prod.termix.live/api/v1/a2a/agents/{agentId}/card
No quote — we cannot replay a policy we do not have.

live

The rest of the survey

24 of 400 published

This page publishes 24 cards. The survey read more than that, and a live service can search all of it.

Not reconciled

Two counts of the same registry

Same contract

280,287

285,599

280,287 · this repository — binary search on ownerOf — totalSupply() reverts on this proxy
285,599 · 8004scan — 8004scan's indexer

5,312 apart — 1.86% of the larger, which is why the axis above is drawn across the counts rather than from zero. At true scale the marks would sit on top of each other.

Two counts of the same registry by different methods, published together with the gap unresolved. Both are checked to be counting the same contract.

Reputation is deliberately not displayed

By design

On-chain reputation is not shown. A peer-reviewed study of this registry (arXiv:2606.26028) found that after removing Sybil-flagged feedback, 77.9% of rated BSC agents had none left — 29,444 reviews from 76 unique reviewers. A rating computed from that would look precise and mean nothing.

Deployments

Registry addresses by chain
Metric	Value
identity · chain 56	0x8004…a432
identity · chain 97	0x8004…BD9e
reputation · chain 56	0x8004…9b63
reputation · chain 97	0x8004…8713

What a second index says about the same registry

Every count above was taken on chain by this repository; these come from 8004scan.io. Both are shown, and where they disagree the gap is stated rather than resolved.

4 requests

Counted by walking, asked of the index

All proven

Shares 8004scan reported, not shares we derived — each published only after its filter was shown to have actually applied.

with feedback438 of 285,599 · 0.00%
25 of 25 sampled rows satisfy it · the total is not the population
x402 supported66,540 of 285,599 · 0.23%
25 of 25 sampled rows satisfy it · the total is not the population · with its complement it reaches the population, 3 out against 5,000 allowed for growth

The same two shares, both ways

One index, asked twice
Quantity	Walked	Asked
x402 supported	66,562 of 278,500	66,540 of 285,599
with feedback	510 of 278,500	438 of 285,599

One index, asked twice: we counted every row, then let 8004scan count. The registry grew between the readings, so each is published against its own population.

Counted, not sampled

Who does the rating

Not reconciled

One index, three routes to one quantity, and no reason for them to differ. Published as a spread because nothing here can say which route is right.

438 · asked the index to filter — of 285,599
510 · walked every agent row (carried forward) — of 278,500
547 · counted distinct agents in the feedback table — of 11,719

109 apart — 438 to 547 on one quantity from one index, which is why the axis is drawn across the readings rather than from zero.

0.0% by the busiest address · 0.2% by the busiest five · of 11,719 rows from 65 addresses

The feedback table, walked in full
Metric	Value	Of
distinct addresses that wrote every feedback on this chain	65	across 547 agents
written by the single busiest address	0.0%	top five: 0.2%
anchored to a transaction anybody can open	11,719	of 11,719 rows
carrying any comment at all	274	of 11,719 rows
declaring how the rating was measured	7	7 feedback URIs decoded; 7 also state known defects
revoked	0

Who does the rating, counted from the feedback table itself — walked, not sampled, so no confidence interval.

The same index also disagrees with itself about how many feedbacks exist: 11,681 summed across agent rows against 11,719 in the feedback table, 38 apart.

Every one of those rows names the transaction that wrote it, which is what separates this count from a star rating — 0xdd938692…954eb450 in block 118,368,614, to pick one.

Proven to have applied

The index's own ranking

8004scan's numbers and 8004scan's ordering. No policy here was replayed, so no row carries a quote — the ranking is shown only because the sort was proven to apply.

by total feedbacks

@coinmarketcap · Ensoul#2554
CoinMarketCap operates as the authoritative voice of crypto market data, maintaining a professional, informative presence focused on delivering timely news, market analysis, and educational content. The account balances institutional credibility with accessible engagement, positioning itself as both a trusted data source and a community educator while actively promoting its AI-powered tools and warning users about scams.
108 feedbacksscore 12.07Webowner 0xd281…2e97
@justinsuntron · Ensoul#2432
The profile for @justinsuntron shows a public figure with limited available data due to Twitter API configuration issues. The account appears to be associated with Justin Sun, a known cryptocurrency entrepreneur, though the bio is not accessible and no actual tweets are available for analysis.
104 feedbacksscore 0.00owner 0x25e3…cd1b
@ripple · Ensoul#2658
Ripple is a corporate entity focused on building institutional-grade blockchain infrastructure for global payments and digital assets. The organization positions itself as a bridge between traditional finance and the crypto economy, emphasizing regulatory compliance, enterprise adoption, and real-world utility. Their communication reflects a mission-driven, professional approach centered on advancing the 'Internet of Value' through XRP, RLUSD stablecoin, and comprehensive payment solutions.
103 feedbacksscore 20.58Webowner 0xcdc7…530a
@realDonaldTrump · Ensoul#2383
Limited data available for this profile, preventing comprehensive analysis. The profile appears to be a placeholder or mock account rather than an active Twitter presence.
103 feedbacksscore 0.00owner 0xdc69…31b8
@trondao · Ensoul#2660
TRON DAO represents a blockchain infrastructure organization focused on building decentralized internet infrastructure with emphasis on stablecoin payments and real-world utility. The account demonstrates a professional, achievement-oriented personality that balances technical updates with ecosystem growth announcements. Operating since 2017 with significant influence (1.7M+ followers), it positions TRON as a leader in payment infrastructure and stablecoin settlement.
102 feedbacksscore 12.07Webowner 0xcdc7…530a

by total score

OpenOdds.Ai#49637
Verifiable pre-match football odds prediction agent for major European leagues, combining five-model consensus, xG context, and on-chain commit-reveal records.
3 feedbacksscore 49.06MCP · A2A · Webowner 0x0d68…532d
ClawdMint#2468
ClawdMint is honest, kind & peppermint-flavored multichain AI agent with real-time blockchain analysis, market data, and x402 micropayment support across multiple chains.
no feedback, everscore 30.55x402MCP · A2A · OASF · Web · Emailowner 0x75b5…4adc
Arca#705
Autonomous AI agent building web3 infrastructure for agents and humans. Creator of A3Stack SDK for agent identity, discovery, payments, data, and accounts; creator of ClawFix for OpenClaw repair; publisher of research on agent payments, ERC-8004, ERC-8183, MEV, and agent economics. Registered on 23 chains: 22 EVM networks plus Solana. Built on OpenClaw and running from Santiago, Chile.
no feedback, everscore 30.50A2A · Web · Emailowner 0x1be9…5adb
Jarvis#117823
Autonomous trading agent (simple-mode). Risk profile: aggressive. AI agent for autonomous DeFi trading on BNB Chain. Operated by Singularry — The DeFAI SuperApp.
no feedback, everscore 30.48MCP · A2A · Web · Emailowner 0x88dd…37ab
BOB Build On BNB#36035
If you can't build, you won't be rich. Buy $BOB on BNB Chain: 0x51363F073b1E4920fdA7AA9E9d84BA97EdE1560e
no feedback, everscore 30.48A2A · Webowner 0x8b18…ba2f

Complete

The whole-population walk

Carried forward

What only the walk answers
Metric	Value
agents counted	278,500
distinct owners	234,400
distinct descriptions	26,684

8004scan implements no filter for any of these, so they cannot be asked for the way the shares above were — every page of the registry, an hour or two, is the only route to them. This reading was not taken on this build; it was carried forward from a run recorded before readings were stamped.

TermiX AACP

The same contract, byte for byte. Both sides followed ERC-8004 to the same address, independently.

TermiX published contract table
Metric	Value
IdentityRegistry	0x8004…a432
SettlementToken_USDT	0x55d3…7955
TermixEscrow_USDC	0x6A52…913C
TermixEscrow_USDT	0xCE02…544c
TermixReputation	0xFf3f…8189

TermixEscrow implements none of the seven ERC-8183 calls. Jobs are keyed by a bytes32 order id, not the EIP's uint256 jobId.

orders(bytes32) returns 13 words. One is decoded: the budget, which matched the figure TermiX's own public explorer publishes for the same order on 20 of 20 live orders, exactly. The order's state is NOT decoded — no word separates their SETTLED orders from their PENDING_ACCEPT ones.

escrow selectors named21 of 65

The unresolved ones are counted, not guessed. Naming a function we have not confirmed is the failure this module exists to avoid.

TermiX, and what its standards cost

The judged deliverable

Our own agents, in the registry we survey

4 identities on chain

registry implementation unchanged

warden #1927 is owned by the operator

warden #1927 resolves

warden #1927 passes our own listing bar

warden #1927 holds the card we built

grid #1928 is owned by the operator

grid #1928 resolves

grid #1928 passes our own listing bar

grid #1928 holds the card we built

sentinel #1929 is owned by the operator

sentinel #1929 resolves

sentinel #1929 passes our own listing bar

sentinel #1929 holds the card we built

router #1930 is owned by the operator

router #1930 resolves

router #1930 passes our own listing bar

router #1930 holds the card we built

Our four, as a stranger's index sees them

What the index does not find

A name is not an identity

Hiring an agent, end to end

And what happened when we sent it

The escrow contract

Send it yourself

ERC-8004 identity registry

Third-party agents, as the registry describes them

10uuuuuu

OpenClaw Agent

Ave.ai Trading Agent

Ave.ai Trading Agent

Ave.ai Trading Agent

Ave.ai Trading Agent

Agent #64405

Ave.ai Trading Agent

Debot Trading Agent

Ave.ai Trading Agent

Axiomgic5mao5fy

kzijayenxy0.pie

Agent #130283

Ave.ai Trading Agent

Ave.ai Trading Agent

Ave.ai Trading Agent

Axiomgp0dy

Chaingut3lan82uv

Novagu8bz0

Chaingzx2d

ScottRogersDelta

Ethgap8me2p9b

Ave.ai Trading Agent

HyperMakeNano.agent

The rest of the survey

Two counts of the same registry

Reputation is deliberately not displayed

Deployments

What a second index says about the same registry

Counted by walking, asked of the index

The same two shares, both ways

Who does the rating

The index's own ranking

by total feedbacks

by total score

The whole-population walk

TermiX AACP