{"adoption":{"description":"Is the endpoint really used? Blend of observed payment traffic and how long its payout wallet has been taking money. 0 -- not null -- when every payout rail the endpoint advertises is one our settlement indexer tails and we have seen nothing arrive -- that is evidence, not ignorance -- and also 0 when the endpoint advertises no way to be paid at all, which is nothing to see rather than something we cannot see. NULL only for the genuine blind spot: a rail we do not index (an L402 endpoint settling over Lightning), or an indexed rail advertised without a payout address, since a settlement cannot be attributed without one. When several endpoints share one payout wallet, its traffic is attributed across them by matching each settlement's amount to the endpoints' advertised prices (traffic at an amount that matches no advertised price is split evenly), so the endpoints that actually earned the payments get them rather than every co-wallet endpoint riding on a busy sibling's traffic -- the detail page reports how many endpoints share the wallet. Demo/sample endpoints are excluded from that attribution: a paywall-exerciser does not earn a shared wallet's payments, so it scores adoption 0 rather than inheriting a real endpoint's traffic.","weights":{"paying_wallets":0.3,"stability":0.2,"transactions":0.25,"volume":0.25}},"composite":{"description":"The single ranking number, blended from the two scores above. When adoption is unobservable the blend substitutes the catalog's median observed adoption, so an endpoint is neither rewarded nor punished for a blind spot that is ours rather than theirs -- dropping the term instead would renormalize its reliability upward and float every unwatchable rail to the top.","weights":{"adoption":0.4,"reliability":0.6}},"confidence":{"description":"Reported alongside the score (not folded into it): saturates to 1.0 at full_probes probes in the availability window, proportionally lower below.","full_probes":50.0},"dimensions":{"activity":{"blend":{"paying_wallets":0.3,"transactions":0.4,"volume":0.3},"description":"Observed on-chain payment adoption: settled transactions, settled volume, and distinct paying wallets, each log-scaled to 0-100 and blended. Payments are RECENCY-WEIGHTED -- every day of history counts half as much as one half_life_days more recent -- so an endpoint being paid today outranks one that stopped a month ago, and no score jumps when a busy day falls off a window edge. Transactions and volume are rescaled so a steadily-paid endpoint reads the same as its flat window_days total; distinct payers are counted once each, discounted by how long ago that payer last paid, so the total never exceeds the true number of paying wallets. Measured per payout WALLET and split evenly across the endpoints sharing that wallet (a settlement cannot be attributed to one endpoint when several share the wallet); distinct payers are taken as the max across the endpoint's wallets. Not measured (weight dropped, never zero) when we observed no settlement to the endpoint's wallet -- our indexer only sees the chains and facilitators it watches, so absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.","half_life_days":14.0,"log_factors":{"paying_wallets":33.333333333333336,"transactions":25.0,"volume_usd":20.0},"lookback_days":90,"window_days":30},"availability":{"description":"Fraction of probes that succeeded over the trailing window, as a percentage. A down endpoint trends to 0.","source":"daily uptime rollup (endpoint_uptime_daily)","window_days":30},"latency":{"description":"Median (p50) response time of successful probes over the trailing window, mapped to 0-100: fast_ms and below score 100, slow_ms and above score 0, linear between.","fast_ms":300.0,"slow_ms":3000.0,"window_days":7},"security":{"description":"Fraction of probes served over working TLS (https), as a percentage.","window_days":7},"stability":{"blend":{"consistency":0.4,"tenure":0.6},"consistency_window_days":30,"description":"How long the endpoint's payout wallet has been taking payments, and how steadily: half from tenure (days since its first observed settlement, log-scaled, topping out at tenure_saturation_days) and half from consistency (on how many of the last consistency_window_days days it was paid at all). A mainstay scores high; a wallet that appeared last week cannot, whatever volume it did, and one that has gone quiet decays toward its tenure alone. Taken as the max across the endpoint's wallets. Reported alongside the score -- it is NOT part of the composite average.","tenure_saturation_days":180.0},"transparency":{"description":"Disclosure completeness out of 100: points for a seller description, a published response schema, how much of the operator identity is resolvable from public records (company, jurisdiction, hosting provenance), and whether the operator has verified itself.","description_grading":{"description":"Description points are graded on whether the text says what the endpoint does, not merely on it being non-empty. A scraper placeholder, captured markup or error-page text, a rendered 'undefined', a bare link, a bare price line, a generic payment placeholder ('access to protected resource'), or anything under min_chars characters earns nothing. Only the operator's own description counts; text our enrichment synthesized is shown on the listing but is not the operator disclosing anything.","min_chars":8,"none":0.0,"substantive":30.0,"substantive_words":8,"thin":18.0},"points":{"description":30.0,"operator_claimed":25.0,"operator_company":8.0,"operator_hosting":6.0,"operator_jurisdiction":6.0,"response_schema":25.0}}},"reliability":{"description":"Does the endpoint work? Weighted average of the probe-and-disclosure dimensions present for it. A missing dimension's weight is dropped and the rest renormalized.","weights":{"availability":0.4,"latency":0.25,"security":0.15,"transparency":0.2}},"risk":{"description":"Compliance override, applied after the weighted average: an endpoint whose hosting-IP allocation country or operator country is a sanctioned jurisdiction has its composite capped, regardless of its other scores. The cap is tiered by sanction severity.","sanctioned_address":{"composite_floor":0.0,"description":"Separate, stronger override: an endpoint whose advertised payout wallet is on OFAC's SDN digital-currency-address list has its composite floored to 0. Unlike the jurisdiction cap (a tiered downrank), an SDN-listed wallet is a near-total prohibition, so it pins the score to the floor. The address list is refreshed daily from OFAC's authoritative SDN feed."},"sanctioned_jurisdictions":[{"code":"CU","composite_cap":0.0,"name":"Cuba","tier":"embargo"},{"code":"IR","composite_cap":0.0,"name":"Iran","tier":"embargo"},{"code":"KP","composite_cap":0.0,"name":"North Korea","tier":"embargo"},{"code":"RU","composite_cap":25.0,"name":"Russia","tier":"broad"},{"code":"BY","composite_cap":25.0,"name":"Belarus","tier":"broad"},{"code":"VE","composite_cap":25.0,"name":"Venezuela","tier":"broad"},{"code":"MM","composite_cap":25.0,"name":"Myanmar","tier":"broad"},{"code":"SY","composite_cap":55.0,"name":"Syria","tier":"elevated"},{"code":"AF","composite_cap":55.0,"name":"Afghanistan","tier":"elevated"},{"code":"SD","composite_cap":55.0,"name":"Sudan","tier":"elevated"},{"code":"NI","composite_cap":55.0,"name":"Nicaragua","tier":"elevated"},{"code":"LB","composite_cap":55.0,"name":"Lebanon","tier":"elevated"},{"code":"YE","composite_cap":55.0,"name":"Yemen","tier":"elevated"}]},"summary":"Every catalogued endpoint gets two 0-100 scores, because buyers ask two different questions. RELIABILITY -- does it work? -- comes from our own unpaid probes plus what the operator discloses. ADOPTION -- does anyone actually pay it? -- comes from settlement traffic our indexer observes on-chain. The composite that surfaces rank by is a blend of the two, so an endpoint that is merely up no longer outranks one that is genuinely used. Down endpoints, undescribed endpoints and unpaid endpoints are all kept in the catalog and scored, just poorly; only manually retired or reported endpoints are hidden."}