Wallet profile
Analyzing wallet history…
Ownership
A provisional compression of the evidence on this profile, not a trust decision.
Risk: Risk signals detected — score summarizes available evidence.
Evidence before score — inspect what this wallet actually did.
Why this score?Score breakdown by dimension lives with the evidence it compresses.
View score breakdownObjective historical information — observations, not trust judgments.
Native/direct transactions where this wallet is the sender or receiver — not internal or token transfers.
Distinct UTC days with at least one indexed transaction.
Distinct calendar months with indexed activity (UTC).
Same dataset as transaction count and active days. Higher frequency is not higher trust.
First seen on Fathom: Sep 27, 2026 · ingestion metadata, not first activity.
Patterns that may need inspection — not verdicts.
Supporting evidence — never reputation on its own. Disputes are claims, not verdicts.
16 days since earliest indexed transaction
Fathom claims this wallet has a known on-chain age, measured from its earliest indexed transaction.
Age is the whole-day difference between today and the earliest first-transaction timestamp from indexed history. If no first transaction is indexed, no wallet_age proof is emitted.
Connect your wallet to inspect your own public profile — checking never requires claiming it.
8 / 1000 · New · Evidence complete
Context behind the global Fathom Score — not a trust decision.
Fathom Score → Dimensions → Evidence
Wallet age, direct transactions, and indexed native volume.
Evidence behind this (3)Evidence that may require further inspection.
These signals describe observed patterns in indexed data. They are not proof of wrongdoing and do not determine whether a wallet should be trusted. Risk is kept separate from reputation: reputation shows what history and relationships exist; risk flags patterns worth a second look.
Wallet is 16 days old with 2 transactions (fresh below 30 days / 10 transactions).
On-chain vouch edges indexed from the Fathom registry (Spec 08). A vouch is economic-backing evidence — it never creates reputation score on its own, and reciprocal vouches are recorded, not hidden.
Registry indexed through block 125298205 · status: ok
A vouch is economic-backing evidence: you stake native assets (or the configured ERC20 token) behind this wallet. It never creates reputation on its own.
Structured, signed claims from other wallets. Attestations are supporting evidence — they never replace on-chain behavior, and they do not create reputation on their own.
Connect your wallet to attest to this profile. Attestations are pseudonymous supporting evidence — they never replace on-chain behavior, and they do not create reputation on their own.
Signed reports filed against this wallet. A dispute is a claim, not proof of wrongdoing — it never changes reputation or risk here. On-chain disputes resolve through the registry lifecycle (open → disputed → upheld/dismissed).
A dispute is a signed report, not proof of wrongdoing. It does not change reputation or risk here. Connect your wallet to file one.
source: blockscout · method: derived · confidence: 0.7 (static per method — a deeper reference does not raise confidence)
Earliest indexed transaction: Sep 11, 2026.
Representative supporting transaction: open transaction — it supports the age claim but is not proven to be the first transaction.
2 direct transactions
Fathom claims this many direct transactions involving the wallet, as counted from indexed history.
Counted by walking indexed per-address transactions where the wallet is sender or receiver. Internal transactions and token transfers are out of scope. A null count (pagination cap exceeded) suppresses this proof entirely.
source: blockscout · method: indexed · confidence: 1 (static per method — a deeper reference does not raise confidence)
Direct transactions where this wallet is sender or receiver — not internal or token transfers.
The transaction links above are representative supporting transactions: they allow inspection but do not independently prove the total of 2.
1 unique counterparties
Fathom claims this many distinct counterparties, derived from a complete transaction walk.
Counted from counterparty relationships derived from the transaction walk. Emitted only when the walk is complete — otherwise the count would be a lower bound and the proof is suppressed.
source: blockscout · method: derived · confidence: 0.7 (static per method — a deeper reference does not raise confidence)
1 distinct counterparties from a complete walk. Showing 1 of 1 — each link opens that counterparty's Fathom profile. Displayed rows are a viewing subset for inspection, not a separate count.
0 counterparties with 2+ interactions
Fathom claims this many counterparties interacted with repeatedly — at least the interaction threshold shown.
Relationships whose interaction count meets the repeat threshold. Same complete-walk requirement as unique counterparties.
source: blockscout · method: derived · confidence: 0.7 (static per method — a deeper reference does not raise confidence)
0 counterparties with 2+ interactions. Showing 0 of 0.
Unique, repeat, and longest direct counterparty relationships.
Evidence behind this (2)Verified contract-history evidence only; this is not protocol history.
Evidence behind this (1)Detected risk signals reduce this provisional score.
Evidence behind this (1)Fathom does not treat one number as absolute truth. The score is a provisional compression of multiple evidence categories.
An overview only — this section assigns no percentages. Inspect the evidence below to see what drives the score.
Each proof records what is asserted, its source, and how to inspect it. Proofs are evidence — they never contain a reputation score. Fathom shows only what indexed data supports.
Proof references point to raw evidence. Where a transaction hash is indexed, a proof links to that transaction; otherwise it falls back to the wallet's explorer page (address-level evidence). We never fabricate a reference that is not backed by indexed data.
16 days since earliest indexed transaction
Fathom claims this wallet has a known on-chain age, measured from its earliest indexed transaction.
Age is the whole-day difference between today and the earliest first-transaction timestamp from indexed history. If no first transaction is indexed, no wallet_age proof is emitted.
source: blockscout · method: derived · confidence: 0.7 (static per method — a deeper reference does not raise confidence)
Earliest indexed transaction: Sep 11, 2026.
Representative supporting transaction: open transaction — it supports the age claim but is not proven to be the first transaction.
2 direct transactions
Fathom claims this many direct transactions involving the wallet, as counted from indexed history.
Counted by walking indexed per-address transactions where the wallet is sender or receiver. Internal transactions and token transfers are out of scope. A null count (pagination cap exceeded) suppresses this proof entirely.
source: blockscout · method: indexed · confidence: 1 (static per method — a deeper reference does not raise confidence)
Direct transactions where this wallet is sender or receiver — not internal or token transfers.
The transaction links above are representative supporting transactions: they allow inspection but do not independently prove the total of 2.
1 unique counterparties
Fathom claims this many distinct counterparties, derived from a complete transaction walk.
Counted from counterparty relationships derived from the transaction walk. Emitted only when the walk is complete — otherwise the count would be a lower bound and the proof is suppressed.
source: blockscout · method: derived · confidence: 0.7 (static per method — a deeper reference does not raise confidence)
1 distinct counterparties from a complete walk. Showing 1 of 1 — each link opens that counterparty's Fathom profile. Displayed rows are a viewing subset for inspection, not a separate count.
0 counterparties with 2+ interactions
Fathom claims this many counterparties interacted with repeatedly — at least the interaction threshold shown.
Relationships whose interaction count meets the repeat threshold. Same complete-walk requirement as unique counterparties.
source: blockscout · method: derived · confidence: 0.7 (static per method — a deeper reference does not raise confidence)
0 counterparties with 2+ interactions. Showing 0 of 0.
Sent 0 ETH · Received 0 ETH
Fathom claims these native sent/received totals, summed across direct transfers.
Summed per-counterparty sent/received across direct native transfers. Contract creations and self-transfers are excluded by derivation; internal and token transfers are out of scope.
source: blockscout · method: derived · confidence: 0.7 (static per method — a deeper reference does not raise confidence)
Totals are summed across all direct relationships. Largest 1 counterparties by volume:
0 contract counterparties
Fathom claims this many contract counterparties — contract identity only, never named protocols.
Counterparties flagged as contracts by the indexed source. This is contract identity, not protocol identity — do not read these as named protocols.
source: blockscout · method: derived · confidence: 0.7 (static per method — a deeper reference does not raise confidence)
0 contract counterparties (identity only — not named protocols). Showing 0 of 0.
This profile is built from evidence, not from a single number. Each layer points at the one above it, so every claim can be traced back to raw on-chain data:
Wallet → Onchain History → Proofs → Evidence → Trust Decision
Each proof above names its source, verification method, and the explorer evidence it was derived from. A reputation score may eventually act as a compression layer over this evidence, but it is intentionally deferred until the scoring inputs are concrete. The trust decision stays yours.
No product rule defines what counts as abnormal. Will be supplied by Spec 05 detection rule.
No structured evidence for this signal.
Too few counterparties to judge how concentrated the graph is. Will be supplied by more indexed interactions.
No structured evidence for this signal.
Too few counterparties to judge behavioral similarity. Will be supplied by more indexed interactions.
No structured evidence for this signal.
0 mutual counterparties — below the minimum of 3.
Too few active vouches to judge clustering. Will be supplied by more indexed vouch edges.
No structured evidence for this signal.
No active disputes (0 total).
No flagged-address source exists yet. Will be supplied by external flagged-address registry.
No structured evidence for this signal.
No malicious-contract source exists yet. Will be supplied by curated malicious-contract registry.
No structured evidence for this signal.