Corrections
This page lists every change we made because something published here was wrong, or silent about something a reader needed to know. Routine data refreshes and copy edits are not corrections and are not listed; the two dates at the foot of every page cover those. Each entry stays here permanently.
Policy
- A correction changes the page, its stamp, and this log — never just the page. The corrected page keeps its original verification date until a human re-verifies the facts; the "updated" date moves because the text changed. We do not bump a verification date to make a page look fresh.
- Fixes are made at the source. When a wrong figure came from a data file or a script, the file or script is fixed so the error cannot regenerate, and a check is added where one was missing.
- Absence is not evidence. If a search or export did not show something, we say "none found in the published export", not "does not exist".
- Report an error to [email protected]. We check the claim against the primary source, correct the page, and add the entry below with the date.
Log
-
What was wrong. Since 2026-07-22 the site read the rate from Lighter’s funding-rates endpoint as an hourly figure. It is an eight-hour figure: the same endpoint reports Hyperliquid at exactly eight times Hyperliquid’s own hourly rate across 95 coins, and Lighter’s docs define the hourly payment as the eight-hour rate divided by eight. Lighter’s per-day carry on the earning comparison, the earning scenarios and the BTC cross-venue table was therefore overstated eight times.
What changed. The rate is now divided by eight before use everywhere, labelled as such, and the daily live-API check asserts the eight-times relationship against Hyperliquid so a change in the endpoint’s basis fails the run instead of silently changing the figures. Found while building the cross-venue funding screener.
-
What was wrong. Both pages said the total allocation reserved for the airdrop was unstated. Aster’s tokenomics have published one since the September 2025 token launch: 53.5% of $ASTER supply sits in an "Airdrop" category released over roughly 80 months. What remains unpublished is narrower — how much of that Stage 6 receives, the points-to-token ratio, and the stage’s end date.
What changed. Both sentences now say exactly that, with the tokenomics figure and its scope. Found while building the points and airdrop tracker, whose Aster row carries the same wording.
-
What was wrong. The scheduled data-refresh pipeline had been stalled for five weeks without anyone noticing. The market index was serving ten pages for markets the venues had already delisted (ACX, ASTR, BEAM, DRIFT, IR, STORJ, VANRY, VINE, WOJAK, XDC) and was missing fifty-five real ones; the venue-coverage snapshot was 34 days old, the Hyperliquid snapshot 44 days, the funding history 30 days.
What changed. All three snapshots refreshed (604 to 649 assets), the ten delisted slugs redirect to the index, and a staleness guard now fails the daily health run whenever any snapshot is older than ten days.
-
What was wrong. The two funding charts were each auto-scaled to their own range while the caption said they were "drawn to the same scale". Hyperliquid’s axis spanned about ±0.0013% and dYdX’s about ±0.0033%, so comparing bar heights was meaningless on the one element built for comparison.
What changed. Both charts now share one axis (the larger of the two extents), each axis is labelled "shared", and a test pins the fix so a calm and a volatile series can no longer draw identical heights.
-
What was wrong. The per-venue table said GMX documented no MCP server or agent tooling. That was a false absence: the check had searched each venue’s documentation index by title only, and GMX describes an MCP server (announced as under development) and agent skills inside a page body the index does not surface.
What changed. GMX row corrected against its full documentation export. Rows for venues where nothing was found now read "none found in the published export" rather than "not in its docs", because an export is not proof of absence.
-
What was wrong. The Lighter pages, the Hyperliquid vs Lighter comparison and the roundup described LIT as a pre-launch token. LIT was already live: it traded as a market and staking paid a stated 6% APR with a three-day unstake lock.
What changed. Every "pre-TGE" and "not launched" claim swept from the site and replaced with the verified status; the 200k points-per-week figure was re-checked and kept.
-
What was wrong. The comparison shipped on 2026-07-17 with a verified stamp but said nothing about the 2026-07-15 oracle-signer-key exploit that drained roughly $18M USDC from Ostium’s OLP vault and paused all trading.
What changed. Added a dated incident notice, a trading-status row, an FAQ entry and a caveat on the verdict, sourced to Ostium’s own statement and independent reporting. Ostium’s status has since been tracked through the venue-status notice on the page.
-
What was wrong. The review stated that Aster had made no commitment to an ASTER airdrop for points holders. Aster’s own Stage 6 documentation commits to one.
What changed. Section rewritten to the documented commitment; the dedicated points page was published the same day.
How the dates on each page work, and where every dataset comes from, is on the data definitions page. Sourcing rules are in the methodology.