--- title: "Inflows" description: "What arrived at the payment addresses public x402 doors advertise in their own 402 challenges, read from Base and Polygon over roughly a day per weekly round. Counts only: no address, host or sender appears here." canonical: "https://scvd.store/inflows" url: "https://scvd.store/inflows" --- # Inflows What arrived at the payment addresses public x402 doors advertise in their own 402 challenges, read from Base and Polygon over roughly a day per weekly round. Counts only: no address, host or sender appears here. ## @context ## @type Dataset ## Name Inflows to advertised x402 payment addresses ## Description What arrived at the payment addresses public x402 doors advertise in their own 402 challenges, read from Base and Polygon over roughly a day per weekly round. Counts only: no address, host or sender appears here. ## URL ## License ## Creator - **@type** — Organization - **@id** — - **Name** — SCVD General Store - **URL** — ## Isaccessibleforfree true ## Conditionsofaccess Free to read. No account, no key, no rate limit. ## Corrections URL ## Measurementtechnique Every distinct EVM address the week's probed doors advertised is watched via eth_getLogs against each chain's canonical USDC contract, over a block window each chain line names. Amounts are compared against the USDC range the advertising door itself quoted. Published only by the keeper's hand, and only for a reading whose chains covered the same window with no address left unread. ## Variablemeasured ### sole-advertised addresses watched (advertised by exactly one door) - **@type** — PropertyValue - **Propertyid** — weeks[].reading.by_exclusivity.sole.watched ### of those, how many received any USDC in the window - **@type** — PropertyValue - **Propertyid** — weeks[].reading.by_exclusivity.sole.received ### addresses advertised by more than one door — shared infrastructure by construction - **@type** — PropertyValue - **Propertyid** — weeks[].reading.by_exclusivity.shared.watched ### Item 4 #### @type PropertyValue #### Name sole-advertised addresses taking in-band transfers from more than one distinct payer — the narrowest figure this data supports #### Propertyid weeks[].reading.narrowest.multi_payer_in_band #### Description Still not proof of a purchase: one operator with two wallets clears this bar, and nothing here has seen a receipt. ### median transfer size - **@type** — PropertyValue - **Propertyid** — weeks[].reading.amounts.median_usdc - **Unittext** — USDC ### share of all transfers held by the busiest tenth of receiving addresses - **@type** — PropertyValue - **Propertyid** — weeks[].reading.distribution.top_decile_share_pct - **Unittext** — PERCENT ### distinct sending addresses across every transfer seen - **@type** — PropertyValue - **Propertyid** — weeks[].reading.senders.distinct ### receiving addresses whose entire inflow came from a single sender - **@type** — PropertyValue - **Propertyid** — weeks[].reading.senders.single_sender_receivers - **Description** — A high share is what dusting and self-funding look like, not a customer base. ### addresses whose doors quoted this rail, per chain — the per-chain denominator - **@type** — PropertyValue - **Propertyid** — weeks[].reading.windows[].advertised_here ### blocks actually covered, per chain - **@type** — PropertyValue - **Propertyid** — weeks[].reading.windows[].blocks - **Unittext** — BLOCKS ### true only when every chain reached the same window; when false the union is a floor and no percentage is valid - **@type** — PropertyValue - **Propertyid** — weeks[].reading.windows_equal ## What this is not NOT sales and NOT revenue. A transfer into an advertised address can be treasury movement, a shared or facilitator wallet, or an operator funding itself, and nothing here can tell those apart. A zero is not evidence nobody paid: an operator who rotated addresses, settles on a rail we do not read, or opened after the window began is invisible. No figure here is a fact about any named door. ## How to read Read narrowest.multi_payer_in_band against narrowest.watched — that is the tightest figure this data supports, and it is still a floor on plausible payments rather than a count of sales. Every ratio has its denominator as a sibling field; do not compute a percentage against any other number. The weeks array is ascending by ISO week. ## Version 1 ## Weeks ### 2026-W35 #### Observed at 2026-08-29T17:40:19.965Z #### Published at 2026-08-29T17:40:32.830Z #### Reading ##### Observed at 2026-08-29T17:40:19.965Z ##### Week 2026-W35 ##### Addresses advertised 448 ##### Addresses checked 448 ##### Addresses capped false ##### Addresses received 162 ##### Transfers seen 9871 ##### Windows equal true ##### By exclusivity ###### Sole - **Watched** — 386 - **Received** — 129 - **Transfers** — 9696 ###### Shared - **Watched** — 62 - **Received** — 33 - **Transfers** — 175 ##### Amounts - **Median USDC** — 0.006 - **Under 1 USDC** — 9640 - **Under 10 USDC** — 9697 - **Over 100 USDC** — 80 ##### Senders - **Distinct** — 548 - **Top sender share percent** — 43 - **Median senders per receiver** — 1 - **Single sender receivers** — 83 - **From advertised** — 1 - **Broadcasters** — 4 - **Broadcaster transfers** — 271 - **Broadcaster share percent** — 3 ##### Narrowest - **Watched** — 386 - **Multi payer in band** — 39 - **Transfers** — 5989 - **Median payers** — 3 ##### In quoted band - **Transfers** — 6343 - **Addresses** — 124 - **Sole addresses** — 97 ##### Windows | Chain | From block | To block | Blocks | Calls | Truncated | Received | Transfers | Addresses unread | Advertised here | Received advertised | Received unadvertised | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Base | 50574737 | 50617936 | 43200 | 22 | false | 162 | 9801 | 0 | 440 | 162 | 0 | | Polygon | 92836932 | 92880131 | 43200 | 87 | false | 4 | 70 | 0 | 44 | 3 | 1 | ##### Distribution - **Median transfers** — 3 - **Max transfers** — 4709 - **Top decile share percent** — 92 ##### What this counts 162 of 448 — addresses that RECEIVED USDC inside the block window each chain line names, out of the 448 distinct EVM addresses this reading actually watched. Both chains were walked over the same 43,200-block window, roughly a day each. Both numbers are here because a share without its denominator is how a market lies, and the windows are here because a walk cut short and a quiet day produce the same count. OF THE 386 ADDRESSES ONLY ONE DOOR ADVERTISED, 129 received. That is the narrower number because an address several doors point at is shared infrastructure by construction — but it is NOT the converse: one door pointing at a custodian is still one door, and this split does not establish that a sole-advertised address is a door's own till. 6343 transfers landed inside the USDC range the advertising door itself quoted, across 97 sole-advertised addresses — a floor on plausible payments, not a count of sales. NARROWEST OF ALL: 39 of those 386 sole-advertised addresses took in-band transfers from MORE THAN ONE distinct payer (5989 such transfers). That is as far as chain data reaches, and it is still not proof — one operator with two wallets paying its own door clears this bar, and nothing here has seen a receipt. ##### What this is not Not sales, not revenue, and not a fact about any named door. An inflow at an advertised address can be treasury movement, a shared or facilitator wallet, or an operator funding themselves — this store cannot tell those apart from a transfer, and does not guess. A zero is not evidence that nobody paid: an operator who rotated addresses, settles on a rail we do not read, nets through a facilitator, or opened after the window began is invisible here, and so is anyone whose payment fell outside it. Counts only, by ruling: no addresses, no hosts, and nothing about this rides on any single door's page. The busiest tenth of receiving addresses account for 92% of all transfers seen, and the busiest single address for 4709 of 9871: that is the shape of shared or facilitator wallets in the list, not of many doors making small sales, and this reading cannot tell those apart. Half the receiving addresses took their whole inflow from a SINGLE sender, which is what dusting and self-funding look like and is not what a customer base looks like. The quoted-band count is a BAND and not a receipt: a door quoting a wide range makes a wide band, a facilitator's fee moves an amount off the quote, and nothing here has seen a receipt. It rules out the transfers that plainly are not purchases; it does not prove that the rest are.