The reset isn’t the red flag. Unlabeled data is.
@Hertzflow_xyz reset its testnet contract records on July 29 after a contract update, while referral records stayed intact. So the old traction didn’t vanish, but the chart got a hard cut. From here, every metric needs to say which contract epoch it belongs to.
That matters because post-reset Vaults now show around $3.99M in TVL, while pre-reset data had shown $157M-$169M TVL and multi-billion cumulative volume. Both numbers can be real. They just can’t live in the same bucket without a label.
The fix is clean: put contract version, reset timestamp, pre/post epoch and metric type next to every Dashboard number. Current AUM is not cumulative history. New liquidity is not old traction. Clean labels turn the reset from a data headache into a stronger methodology.
My take: HertzFlow doesn’t need to hide the reset. It needs to make the split impossible to misread.
No epoch label, no clean conclusion.
@Hertzflow_xyz reset its testnet contract records on July 29 after a contract update, while referral records stayed intact. So the old traction didn’t vanish, but the chart got a hard cut. From here, every metric needs to say which contract epoch it belongs to.
That matters because post-reset Vaults now show around $3.99M in TVL, while pre-reset data had shown $157M-$169M TVL and multi-billion cumulative volume. Both numbers can be real. They just can’t live in the same bucket without a label.
The fix is clean: put contract version, reset timestamp, pre/post epoch and metric type next to every Dashboard number. Current AUM is not cumulative history. New liquidity is not old traction. Clean labels turn the reset from a data headache into a stronger methodology.
My take: HertzFlow doesn’t need to hide the reset. It needs to make the split impossible to misread.
No epoch label, no clean conclusion.