Don’t just stare at points: today’s 3 early projects—what you really need to see is whether the “rules” are starting to get implemented

# Don’t just stare at points: today’s 3 early projects—what you really need to see is whether the “rules” are starting to get implemented
Today, take a look at ORDI Network, TxFlow, and ZeruAI Zaps: one completes the test-season switch, one just kicks off Points Season 1, and one begins mapping past on-chain behavior into points.
Worth looking at now isn’t because of “token issuance rumors,” but because over the past week there have been verifiable new nodes, and users can already review records or participate in the product.
Even the maximum risk is the same: points don’t equal tokens; without published redemption rules, trading costs and privacy exposure may be more real than points.
## ORDI Network
**Quick takeaway: ** Season 1 isn’t just wrapping up—over 44,000 Bitcoin Signet actions revealed 8 categories of failures. The fixed V17 is now in Season 2, and old points and rankings are kept.
**Why now: ** On October 3, the official announced the Season 1 results and provided upgrades to the new faucet, anti-counterfeit measures, batch isolation, and the exit mechanism. For existing users, the most important thing isn’t rerunning everything—it’s confirming whether points and rankings carry over completely; for new users, this is a window to observe whether the repaired product is stable.
**Metrics worth tracking:**
- Whether the Season 1 points and ranking migrations are accurate;
- The failure transaction rate for V17, and whether a single stuck batch still affects other batches;
- When the official will open the decoder that can be independently rebuilt, and whether it will supplement the scoring rules.
**Pitfalls I will avoid: ** I won’t buy test coins or so-called “points accounts,” and I won’t enter the faucet via search ads. The official only confirms the continuation of points but doesn’t confirm token allocation in this announcement. Mechanical batch operations may also leave highly homogeneous activity traces.
## TxFlow
**Quick takeaway: ** Points Season 1 started on September 28. The official also clearly stated it will identify early users who traded before the season, so verifying records on old addresses has more informational value than piling up transaction volume on new addresses.
**Why now: ** The project has moved from vague expectations into a formal points season, but the points deadlines, behavior weights, and use cases are still not fully disclosed. In the current points page, some regions show the service as unavailable directly. This is both a product threshold and a compliance signal that can’t be ignored.
**Metrics worth tracking:**
- Whether historical transactions are counted, and when first points arrive;
- The points increments from different types of actions and their update frequency;
- The Season 1 cutoff time, anti-sybil rules, and the scope of regional availability.
**Pitfalls I will avoid: ** I won’t bypass regional restrictions, and I won’t do high-frequency trading just for unknown weights. Fees, spreads, and slippage are definite costs, while what the points correspond to is not yet clarified by this official announcement. Volume farming through self-trades or trading with no economic purpose may also be filtered out.
## ZeruAI Zaps
**Quick takeaway: ** It doesn’t make all wallets start from zero. Instead, it reads historical on-chain behavior using zScore, then maps verifiable activities into Zaps; addresses with long-term on-chain records are better suited to check for points first.
**Why now: ** This week, the official has repeatedly explained the relationship between zScore, Zaps, and the activity market, and has launched activities based on verifiable trading behavior. The key change is that historical behavior is now entering a visible points layer, and the official also emphasized that fake trades and wash trading typically won’t form meaningful contributions.
**Metrics worth tracking:**
- Differences in initial Zaps between old and new addresses;
- Which real behaviors can reliably increase points, rather than just looking at the number of transactions;
- The actual use cases of Zaps, how they’re distributed by season, and whether future snapshots or redemption mechanisms will be published.
**Pitfalls I will avoid: ** I won’t take real position risk based on unannounced conversion relationships. Before connecting to a historical main wallet, also consider the privacy cost of having address profiles centrally linked. When joining trading activities, your ranking position cannot offset fees, slippage, and market volatility.
## Collectible judgment framework
When I encounter a new points program, I only do four-step checks: **first, see whether the node is official and within seven days; then, whether the actions can be completed using test coins or at low cost; then, verify points, tokens, and rewards separately; finally, compare the “observable data” with the “real costs that must be paid.”**
If a project only has a points page but provides no deadline, weighting, anti-sybil measures, or use cases, the reasonable action is usually to record the initial state and wait; if it clearly acknowledges historical behavior, then existing users should verify eligibility first; if it requires ongoing trading, first list fees, slippage, regional restrictions, and address privacy as a cost table. All three of these projects are worth tracking today, but what’s truly valuable isn’t clicking more buttons—it’s whether the rules continue to turn slogans into verifiable data.