Today I laid two sets of materials side by side: one says 8 chains, the other says 10. Flip it around—within the same project, the number of chains mysteriously increases by two. To make these two names match, I spent an entire day bouncing between the pages. Line by line, check after check—each one matched, and the more I checked, the more it felt like I hadn’t missed a page. Instead, it was that these two sets simply weren’t intended to speak at the same point in time.
I copied the figures and did the math: 8 becomes 10—just the chain count alone is up 25%. In the same announcement, it also bundles 1.5 million registered wallets and 90,000 daily active users; the publication timestamps are far apart. The on-chain map for @TermMax has to be read according to the relevant time points. That’s what I verified repeatedly against the original text before daring to write it down. This 25% isn’t a typo—it’s the outcome of each document taking its own side a few months apart. The timing of that alignment matters more than the numbers themselves.
Neither of the two materials is wrong; the mistake was my way of reading. One is a living document with rolling updates; the other is a snapshot taken on the day of publication. Each one locks its own time point, so the numbers naturally don’t line up. After reading them side by side twice, I slowly got the gist: the key is in the timing, not the numbers. Put plainly, you read the chain count by first reading the date; you read the date by first understanding the update habits. Behind the same term are two different timelines.
I then checked item by item against the publication dates. The 8 chains correspond to the living document’s last update criteria. In the 10 chains, the extra HyperEVM and RobinhoodChain can be traced back—you can find their origins on the Booster activity page as well. The chain count didn’t perform any magic trick; the criteria changed as time moved on. Those two extra chains have been there all along; it’s just that the living document hasn’t had the chance to write them yet. The announcement stated it first, and after copying this checklist, I pasted it beside the living document.
The time difference between the two sets of materials is right there, yet nobody mentioned a single sentence about it. The chain-count criteria must be read with the time point—it’s the reading that’s closest to the truth. But that doesn’t mean the official materials are inconsistent. There’s only one unanswered question left: when the living document updates again, will it catch up to the 10, or will it keep following its own rhythm? I’m leaving that as a pending query. People tracking the charts only care whether the numbers go up or down; the ones doing deep verification care which day those numbers stand on. #TermMax
I copied the figures and did the math: 8 becomes 10—just the chain count alone is up 25%. In the same announcement, it also bundles 1.5 million registered wallets and 90,000 daily active users; the publication timestamps are far apart. The on-chain map for @TermMax has to be read according to the relevant time points. That’s what I verified repeatedly against the original text before daring to write it down. This 25% isn’t a typo—it’s the outcome of each document taking its own side a few months apart. The timing of that alignment matters more than the numbers themselves.
Neither of the two materials is wrong; the mistake was my way of reading. One is a living document with rolling updates; the other is a snapshot taken on the day of publication. Each one locks its own time point, so the numbers naturally don’t line up. After reading them side by side twice, I slowly got the gist: the key is in the timing, not the numbers. Put plainly, you read the chain count by first reading the date; you read the date by first understanding the update habits. Behind the same term are two different timelines.
I then checked item by item against the publication dates. The 8 chains correspond to the living document’s last update criteria. In the 10 chains, the extra HyperEVM and RobinhoodChain can be traced back—you can find their origins on the Booster activity page as well. The chain count didn’t perform any magic trick; the criteria changed as time moved on. Those two extra chains have been there all along; it’s just that the living document hasn’t had the chance to write them yet. The announcement stated it first, and after copying this checklist, I pasted it beside the living document.
The time difference between the two sets of materials is right there, yet nobody mentioned a single sentence about it. The chain-count criteria must be read with the time point—it’s the reading that’s closest to the truth. But that doesn’t mean the official materials are inconsistent. There’s only one unanswered question left: when the living document updates again, will it catch up to the 10, or will it keep following its own rhythm? I’m leaving that as a pending query. People tracking the charts only care whether the numbers go up or down; the ones doing deep verification care which day those numbers stand on. #TermMax