Database population bounty program

Hello everyone! Chain.Love is looking for the brave heroes that are ready to improve the database of solutions for the common good, and to earn some money!

Summary

• Bring us the pull requests that are improving our database - populating it, making it more usable, etc., and get rewarded in plain USDC/USDT.

Rewards

• 0.06 USDC for one improved cell non-null field after approving your pull-request.
• 0.1 USDC for each added image.
• 10 USDC for the approved DBIP issue. There are no specific demands here, DBIPs will be verified manually, and if it make sense - it is getting approved.
• +10% to the total PR reward if you post about your PR on Twitter and tag us (our account is x.com/chainloveweb3). To receive a reward please make sure to submit a link into your PR (either to the description or in the comments).
• Rewards are going to be distributed once a month on ETH network only
• Each review from the Chain.Love team that is not passed because of a number of specific obvious mistakes listed below will reduce the reward by 30%. To ensure the system is not going to be abused - if the PR that failed quality gateway was closed or left unattended, the reward will be reduced from another PR of the same user. Exception: reviews from Chain.Love's USS Supervisor does not count towards bill reduction. Consider it a free contribution helper.
• The most recent posts in [Discussions#839] contains an effective multiplier for each data category (api, explorers, bridges, etc.). They are published once a week automatically.
• People actively participating in this product at early stage may be later eligible for the rewards coming later🤫

Demands

• Data have to pass our automatic validation system
• Data have to follow all the instructions from style guide
• Don't abuse the system. If you we spot you creating 10 PRs, each adding just one more item to the array in the same cell - only the latest PR will be rewarded.
• PR size should not be bigger than 100 lines of code and/or 200 edited cells.
• A list of errors reducing database rewards:
  ** broken or dead links
  ** providers that no longer exist
  ** providers that do not support the claimed network
  ** providers that do not have claimed pricing plans
  ** changes that was requested in the previous review but have not been implemented

How to participate?

Simply when opening your Issue or PR - add your public address for the rewards :)

Currently looking for updates on

Only these listed networks are a subject of a bounty program, although we accept PRs for any Web3 network.

• Algorand
• Filecoin
• Somnia

[Adisaok]

Hi Maintainer, Please, is this Database opulation bounty program still open?

[ark-kirill]

Hey, yes it is

[ArseniiPetrovich]

It is it is, for sure :)

[hyperion229]

Nice project
Let do it for free

[ark-kirill]

@ArseniiPetrovich Quick idea 💡 — what if contributors get +10% to their PR reward if they post the PR link on Twitter, tag us, and the PR later gets approved? It could help spread the word and reward contributors for promoting their work! Lmk wdyt

[ArseniiPetrovich]

Hey, @ark-kirill! That sounds like a really neat idea! This way we may attract more people to contribute to the common good! Let me patch the reward program to include this suggestion!

[ArseniiPetrovich]

October Summary

In October, we welcomed our first external contributor, who earned $69.15 USDT for improving our open database of Web3 solutions.

We’re now inviting more contributors to join the Chain.Love Grant Program — help expand and refine the database that supports the entire ecosystem, and get rewarded in USDC/USDT. The rules applied are in the first post of this discussion.

Contribute to the common good, enhance public infrastructure, and get paid for your impact 💚

[ark-kirill]

November Summary

We continued growing our open-source community and rewarded contributors with 28.5 USDT for improving and expanding our database of Web3 infrastructure solutions.

As we enter the next month, we’re excited to announce that rewards for contributions to the Arbitrum ecosystem will be doubled❗️to support builders who help us strengthen this part of the Toolbox.

And with the end of the year approaching, we may have a few surprises prepared for our most active contributors.

Join the effort, help improve public Web3 infrastructure, and get rewarded for your impact!

[BOSTONE069]

Hello is this program still open for contribution ?

[ArseniiPetrovich]

Heey! Yes, absolutely!

[ark-kirill]

@BOSTONE069 hey,
keep in mind that we are preparing some Holiday presents for the most active contributors. Just for the note.

[ArseniiPetrovich]

We are making an ammendment to our Grant Program:
[From 17 December 2025] PR size should not be bigger than 100 lines of code and/or 200 edited cells.

This is made to improve the contribution process - bigger PRs are way harder to verify, and they increase chances to introduce a bug.
No existing PRs will be affected, and they will be accepted according to the previous rules.

[ArseniiPetrovich]

Ammendment - adding Aptos and Sonic chains (effective immediately), removing Linea and Stellar (effective 1st January 2026)
Thanks for your contributions!

[ArseniiPetrovich]

Hey, everyone :)
Holidays are coming, and we are pretty much on board with all of you celebrating. Having that said, from 25th December to January 4th there will be only a few sleepy elves on-duty, and it is likely your PRs are not going to get merged. Have no worry then, if you feel like working - we are always welcoming new contributions that will make it to the main branch right after we get back on January 5th. Cheers!

[Adisaok]

Hey, everyone.
Compliments of the season.

[ark-kirill]

December Summary

In December, we continued expanding the Chain.Love open-source database and supporting community-driven contributions that improve the discovery and transparency of Web3 infrastructure.

💸 December rewards total: $322.75
(This amount includes guaranteed minimum contribution rewards.)

Rewards were distributed based on:

• meaningful contributions to the public infrastructure database,
• improvements to coverage, accuracy, and data quality,
• long-term value for developers and ecosystems using Chain.Love.

As a reminder, contributions related to the Arbitrum ecosystem are rewarded with a 2× multiplier until January 15, as part of our ongoing effort to strengthen this part of the Toolbox.

Thank you to everyone who contributed in December.
We’re heading into the new year with more updates, improvements, and opportunities to contribute.

Join the effort, help improve public Web3 infrastructure, and get rewarded for your impact.

[ArseniiPetrovich]

@harunsulaiman @Adisaok you guys may have noticed that the rewards received was slightly higher than initially calculated rewards - this is a New Year gift we were promising to share, wish you a lot of happiness and love in 2026

[Adisaok]

Thank you @ark-kirill, @ArseniiPetrovich and team for the New Year gift. It’s been a pleasure contributing and working with you, and I hope for more opportunities to keep working together. Wishing us a successful and fulfilling year ahead.

[ArseniiPetrovich]

Good day everyone!
We are now actively interested in populating our database for TON (Telegram Open Network). For that, we are giving out x2 rewards for 10 first unique entities in each category, all the other records are considered with regular rewards. Unique entity in this case means a unique Oracle, unique RPC provider, etc., so for example, if you add following lines to RPC (pseudo-code):

Alchemy RPC-free
Alchemy RPC-pay-as-you-go
Chainstack RPC-free
Chainstack RPC-pay-as-you-go

you will get x2 for 2 full-line records, and regular x1 rewards for another 2 full-line records.

[ArseniiPetrovich]

@Adisaok @harunsulaiman maybe you guys will be interested :)

[Adisaok]

@ArseniiPetrovich, I am interested.

[Adisaok]

@ArseniiPetrovich Do you mean the provider must be unique to only TON? A provider that is not providing its service to any other network, only TON!

[ArseniiPetrovich]

@Adisaok no-no, it can be any provider, both unique to TON and not unique. The x2 rule will be applied though only for changes in TON folder, so to maximize your rewards you likely want to add unique providers first because more cells will get x2 then.
But generally it can be ANY provider

[Adisaok]

@ArseniiPetrovich , alright

[Adisaok]

@ArseniiPetrovich TON has not been added to existing networks.

[ArseniiPetrovich]

@Adisaok feel free to add! Just create a folder in the /networks named ton and add files inside :)

[Adisaok]

@ArseniiPetrovich, alright

[ArseniiPetrovich]

@iamhappy2day, @ark-kirill I would like to open a discussion regarding our bounty program.

Overall, the program is clearly working: we see growing participation and more developers contributing to the database. However, we have started to encounter a recurring issue that we likely need to address.

One of the original motivations behind this project is the observation that AI-based discovery of Web3 services is heavily unreliable, as AI is only as good as its sources. This often results in AI-"hallucinated" tools or incorrect feature claims in responses — something we also touched on in our recent zCash forum post.

Because of this, when attracting contributors, our expectation is that submissions are verified by humans. Using AI for assistance (syntax checks, formatting, minor edits, etc.) is completely fine — we all do that. I mean, even this post is paraphrased by AI to simply improve wordings a bit, lol :))
The problem is not AI usage itself, but unverified, AI-generated contributions being submitted as-is.

At the moment, we do not formally check whether a contribution is AI-generated. That alone is not an issue. It becomes one when the validation effort on our side grows disproportionately large. Recently, both @gladiator439rimski-ship-it and I have had PRs that required 30+ messages to explain fundamental issues to our contributors. And while clarifying schema details, column formats, or references for newcomers is expected and acceptable (our system is not trivial), what is becoming critical, however, is the increasing number of PRs that include:

• links that do not work at all,
• providers or solutions that no longer exist,
• providers that do not support the claimed network.

In several cases, the links did exist years ago but were removed. This strongly suggests reliance on historical AI data without basic manual verification. Any human opening the link would immediately see the issue.

This creates an unhealthy imbalance: reviewers spend significantly more time validating and correcting submissions than contributors spend generating them. Given that this is a paid bounty program (which is perfectly fine), I believe our incentives should reward not just volume, but correctness.

As a proposal for discussion:

a) Increase the reward per correctly contributed cell (e.g. 0.075–0.1).
b) Introduce a penalty after each failed PR review where failure is due to obvious verification issues, such as those listed above (e.g. a 30% reward reduction per failed review).

This policy could be waived for first-time contributors or the first few PRs, to avoid discouraging newcomers.

At the moment we have nearly 30 open PRs, and the review process is becoming unsustainable. I want contributors to stay motivated, but I also want to protect the core team — especially @gladiator439rimski-ship-it — from repeated frustration caused by the same avoidable issues.

This is only a proposal. Before making any changes, I would very much like to hear feedback and alternative ideas from the community.

[iamhappy2day]

Great topic. Fully agree this needs to be addressed.

From my perspective, PRs that contain any of the following:
• broken or dead links
• providers that no longer exist
• providers that do not support the claimed network

are not just “low quality,” they indicate that the contributor didn’t perform basic manual verification. In practice, this almost always means the submission was generated blindly by AI and not checked by a human.

Since this is a paid bounty program, I strongly agree that incentives should reward correctness and verification, not raw output.

I support progressive penalties for repeated violations of the criteria above — including permanent exclusion from the bounty program after 2–3 failed PRs. Reviewers pay a real cost in time when validating and correcting these submissions. At the same time, increasing rewards for clean, well-verified PRs is a good idea and helps reinforce the right behavior.

Also I agree that first-time contributors may not fully understand expectations. To address this, I'd like to propose adding a mandatory verification checklist to every PR via a PR template

Verification Checklist (required)
• ☐ I personally opened and verified every external link
• ☐ I confirmed the provider currently supports the listed network
• ☐ I verified pricing and features on the provider’s official site
• ☐ This PR is not a blind AI-generated submission

[ArseniiPetrovich]

Amendment: Quality gateway

Starting from 1st of February 2026 we introduce an amendment aimed to improve the quality of the code. For that we:

1. Increase the reward per cell from $0.05 to $0.06
2. Introduce a "quality gateway". The quality gateway will be verifying as of now the most obvious mistakes that should be easily avoidable if the contribution is made manually (e.g. not via AI, or only using AI for styling). The exact list of what is not passing the quality gateway:

• broken or dead links;
• providers that no longer exist;
• providers that do not support the claimed network;
• providers that do not have claimed pricing plans.

Each time the quality gateway is not passed - the reward for the PR is reduced by 30%. To ensure the system is not going to be abused - if the PR that failed quality gateway was closed or left unattended, the reward will be reduced from another PR of the same user.

3. Introduce a one-time waiver from the quality gateway for the first-time contributors. We totally understand that contributing for the first time may be hard, and we aim to grow our contributors community. For that - the first PR opened from a new unique user that never contributed before won't receive any penalties.

The math is following

• If you are an experienced contributor and you do not make simple mistakes - you will receive 20% more money than before.
• If you are a first-time contributor - you could theoreticall make mistakes, but will still not get any losses.
• However, if you are a regular contributor that keep contributing non-existent links - you will receive only 16% less (0.06-30%=0.042; 0.042-0.05=0.008; 0.008/0.05=0.16) - than what you would have received before the quality gateway. However, if you keep submitting the unverified links - your reward may be reduced significantly.

Note: if you want to open a PR that is not ready for the review yet - use the "Draft" feature when opening the PR to clearly show that it should not be reviewed yet. Otherwise, the review may happen at any given point in time after the PR creation.

[ArseniiPetrovich]

Ah, one additional thing - from February 2026 we will issue rewards on ETH Mainnet only, hope that is not a big deal for you all. January rewards will be distributed as usual.

[harunsulaiman]

okay

[harunsulaiman]

@ArseniiPetrovich i have some thoughts running in my mind
1a. will my contribution for cardano and tezos network be rewarded? i am getting to understand that it is not listed here and you probably want to stick strictly to these networks first. and (1b) made mention of eth mainnet, you've made it clear that you'll be working with evm chains only for now, this is helpful.

2. i've started contributing here around december, and this project is nice,. you highlight the importance of quality contributions which is invaluable. having that in mind, it takes alot of efforts in putting this quality contribution together(especially when i now started to take that in consideration following repeated corrections). looking at the reward factor, it is fair to say that it only becomes rewarding whenever you announced an X2.

3. from .5 to .6 which is a noticeable increase, but still falls short of the motivational level. i propose (a) 0.8 per entry (b) X2 rewards should should be maintained and announced when deemed fit as usual.

4. penalties and other measures: i will not reject that and if my proposal is accepted, it will lead to a significant shift from quantity to quality across all contributors.

[ArseniiPetrovich]

Thanks for the thoughtful feedback, @harunsulaiman — I really appreciate you taking the time to express it.

Let me first clarify two important points to avoid any misunderstandings:

1. Network support vs. bounty eligibility
Chain.Love as a database supports all blockchain networks. This is not limited to EVM chains — for example, Solana, Algorand, and TON are fully supported and actively maintained.
What is limited is the scope of the bounty program, which at any given time applies only to a defined list of networks. This is purely a prioritization and budget-allocation mechanism, not a technical or ideological restriction.

2. Payout network
From February 2026, all bounty rewards will be paid on Ethereum Mainnet only. This does not imply that we are focusing on EVM chains only; it is an operational decision made to simplify payouts and reduce overhead for our finance team.

Rewards, quality, and motivation

Chain.Love is still at an early stage, actively growing its user base and contributor community. The original reward of $0.05 per validated cell was intentionally chosen as a middle ground:

• high enough to fairly compensate contributors,

• low enough to avoid incentivizing low-effort, high-volume submissions.

Based on real data, this model has worked reasonably well. Some contributors have earned $300+ per month, which — while not a full-time income in every country — is a meaningful and competitive reward for work that primarily involves research, verification, and structured data entry. Also, we don't believe it took a real full-time job to get these $300, so, should be pretty much fair.

The recent increase to $0.06 per cell was not intended as a general reward boost, but rather as a risk offset introduced by the quality gateway. Contributors who consistently submit clean, verified data will effectively earn more than before, while repeated low-quality submissions are discouraged economically.

Importantly, we do not currently believe that simply increasing payouts (e.g. to $0.08) would, on its own, shift behavior from quantity to quality. Without changing the incentive structure, higher rewards tend to amplify the same problems rather than solve them.
A truly quality-first system would likely require stronger mechanisms (e.g. slashing or reputation-based incentives), which we consider out of scope for the project at its current stage.

That said, we are absolutely open to concrete, economically sound proposals that demonstrably incentivize high-quality contributions. If such a model proves viable, higher rewards can be revisited in that context.

Regarding your recent PRs

Namely PRs #467 and #470. We do agree that earlier wording may have been misinterpreted as if we were accepting bounty-eligible contributions for all networks.

PR #470: While the network is currently outside the bounty scope, the contribution quality is solid. As a one-time compromise, we will reward it at $0.03 per cell (50% of the current rate).

PR #467: This contribution would require substantial rework to meet our current standards, and we are not actively seeking data for Cardano at this time. I would therefore recommend closing this PR.

Going forward, only the networks explicitly listed in the bounty program will be eligible for rewards, while all the networks are welcome in Chain.Love and we encourage everyone to populate the data for all the known networks. Usage of the Contributor service should drastically improve the contribution experience and remove the need for the knowledge in Git.

Again, thank you for contributing and for engaging constructively. Your feedback is valuable, and we genuinely want to keep improving both the program and the contributor experience — while keeping the system fair and sustainable for everyone involved.

[ArseniiPetrovich]

Just wanted to let you all know that I'm keeping my hand on a pulse for payments, it should be released soon.
This month we got 10!!!! different contributors improving our database, with the biggest reward of $50.44 going to the @harunsulaiman

[harunsulaiman]

Can I get that 50 in my wallet today

[ArseniiPetrovich]

@harunsulaiman not yesterday, no, but today you can :)

[ArseniiPetrovich]

@harunsulaiman should have landed :)

[ArseniiPetrovich]

Good day, dear contributors. Unfortunately, due to lower demand, starting from August 11th we exclude Arbitrum and Ethereum from our bounty program. Thank you for your efforts!

[harunsulaiman]

But I guess any pr created before that date will get rewarded right?

[ArseniiPetrovich]

Yup, of course :)

[EazyHood]

@ArseniiPetrovich

0x06f44f4839fd5df4f4670036d028b29dec939363

USDC/USDT (Ethereum mainnet)

Thank you

[ArseniiPetrovich]

Good day, @EazyHood :)
July's reward is being calculated and will be reported here as soon as it is ready - approximately on August 10th (or earlier)

[harunsulaiman]

My wallet adress:

0x349B1e70172Ca2EF9A6da9AeD574F75e994Aa3e1

USDC (Ethereum)

[harunsulaiman]

@ArseniiPetrovich

is there any other opportunity coming this month. the accepted network list looks narrow now

[ArseniiPetrovich]

To be honest - not really. Blockchain industry is not at it best nowadays, so we have to adjust. Moreover - it is likely we will remove one more network during August (not confirmed yet), keeping the 2 only.

[harunsulaiman]

This means less opportunity for reward this month, okay.

[ArseniiPetrovich]

Wow, what a month, huh?! :)

There were 124 merged PRs coming from 22 unique contributors!!
Ratings:

1. Best $ outcome: @harunsulaiman with $75.75 (also, beautiful number, hehe). Silver&Bronze goes to: @Adisaok and @ZuryVill
2. Number of PRs merged: @augustodluis. Then @harunsulaiman and @Adisaok.
3. Biggest reward per PR: @ZuryVill

Total rewards are calculated and sent to finance for settlement. Will keep you posted.

[ArseniiPetrovich]

@es3298 please send me your wallet address, your contribution is eligible for the reward.

[ArseniiPetrovich]

Meh... sorry, folks. Person responsible for payments is on vacation and will be back August 17th, when the payment is going to be initiated.
Truly sorry for the inconvenience.

[harunsulaiman]

Dear @ArseniiPetrovich ,

I am requesting for an urgent appeal to recieve my rewards on or before Thursday, 13th of August 2026. This is due to an urgent need and I’ll be glad if my request is accepted.
Gracias.

Faithfully,
Harun Sulaiman
Contributor to the chain.love database.

[ArseniiPetrovich]

Good day, @harunsulaiman. Unfortunately, this is not something I can make happen. Finance person is on a leave till Monday, and the payment is not happenning without them.

[ArseniiPetrovich]

An extension to our grant program has been released => #2691

For all of you participating in Chain-Love for over 3 months it is a great chance to significantly increase your monthly rewards.

[bcabreraike-cmyk]

Submitted a focused DBIP proposal for review: #2713

It proposes an optional lastVerifiedAt ISO date field for freshness tracking, with explicit safeguards against inferred or unverified dates. I am not making speculative data edits; the issue asks the maintainers to confirm the preferred migration path.

Reward address: 0xf04865D955D5f698951c3eBFdb6654EF5Ab17ac

[EazyHood]

Hi @ArseniiPetrovich — a quick question about the July settlement, not a chase.

You posted on 6 August that July's rewards were calculated and sent to finance. Going by
the previous rounds, payment has followed the announcement fairly quickly: March was
announced on 3 April and confirmed sent on 7 April, and June was announced on 8 July and
landed on 10 July. July is now eleven days out with no update, so I wanted to check
whether anything is pending on the contributors' side rather than assume.

My wallet is registered in this thread (posted 4 August, before the round was calculated),
so if something is missing from my end I would rather fix it now than find out next month.

Thanks for running the programme — the weekly digests have been genuinely useful.

[ArseniiPetrovich]

@EazyHood yup, all good - as planned, this month rewards went out few mins ago.

[EazyHood]

@EazyHood yup, all good - as planned, this month rewards went out few mins ago.

Received, thank you — and thanks for coming back on it.

One reconciliation question, with the numbers so it is easy to check. The transfer was
4.13 USDT, which matches these five exactly:

#1987 2.41 #1978 1.46 #1975 0.08 #1979 0.12 #1981 0.06

The one that is not in it is #1982, where you recorded $1.86 by hand on 6 August, above
the bot's 0.00 suggestion. 4.13 + 1.86 = 5.99, so it looks like the hand-entered figure
did not make it into the batch rather than anything being disputed.

I also see #1983 came through as 0.00 rather than the bot's 1.50, which matches your
hand-entered figure there — so the manual values were clearly used. #1982 just seems to
have been missed in the other direction.

No rush on it; happy for it to ride along with the August batch if that is simpler.

[ArseniiPetrovich]

It seems you sum up things a bit wrong, as #1987 is not on 2.41.

I'm not having IDs of the issues on me rn, but calculations was:
EazyHood
0x06f44f4839fd5df4f4670036d028b29dec939363
0.41 (#1866) +0.08 (#1975) +0.12 (#1979) +0.06 (#1981) +1.86 (#1982) +1.46 (#1978)+0.14=4.13

And 3 PRs (#1976, #1977 and #1983) ended up in 0,00 compensation.

In totaly, as you may check yourself, in July you had 9 PRs merged.
I may have mixed up the 0,14 number, not sure where I'm taking it from, but all the rest of the calculations are correct.

[EazyHood]

It seems you sum up things a bit wrong, as #1987 is not on 2.41.

I'm not having IDs of the issues on me rn, but calculations was: EazyHood 0x06f44f4839fd5df4f4670036d028b29dec939363 0.41 (#1866) +0.08 (#1975) +0.12 (#1979) +0.06 (#1981) +1.86 (#1982) +1.46 (#1978)+0.14=4.13

And 3 PRs (#1976, #1977 and #1983) ended up in 0,00 compensation.

In totaly, as you may check yourself, in July you had 9 PRs merged. I may have mixed up the 0,14 number, not sure where I'm taking it from, but all the rest of the calculations are correct.

You're right and I was wrong — apologies for the noise, and for the slow reply.

My mistake was mechanical: I was parsing the compensator's verdict line automatically, and
for #1987 it reads

Final suggested compensation: 2.41 x 0.06 = 0.14 USDC.

My parser took the first number after "compensation:", which is the effective-cell count,
not the amount. So I read 2.41 where it says 0.14. The same thing bit me on #1983 (1.50
cells, 0.09 USDC). Everything downstream of that was wrong, including my claim that #1982
was missing — it is in your breakdown and it was paid. Your figures are correct and the
4.13 reconciles exactly.

I can answer your open question, though: the 0.14 is #1987, "Fix Altitude links", merged
9 July. That also makes it 10 PRs merged in July rather than 9 — #1987 is the one missing
from the list, and with it your sum lands on 4.13 exactly.

Separately, and only so it is on record before the August round is calculated: four of my
DBIPs were approved in August.

#2460 approved 10 Aug the github column holds two different kinds of value
#2481 approved 10 Aug explorers is the only category naming the common price column pricing
#2681 approved 13 Aug economicalSecurity / economicalSecurityNote misspell "economical"
#2682 approved 13 Aug wallets names its audit column audit, unlike the other three

Per the programme description that is 10 USDC each for the approved DBIP issue. They don't
appear in the compensator's per-PR tallies or in the weekly digest, so I assume they're
added by hand at settlement — flagging them now rather than after.

Two of them are already being implemented by other contributors (#2481 by
@elevasyncsolutions-jpg in #2512, #2460 by @chico10117 in #2479), which is good to see. I
read the rule as paying the DBIP author for the approved proposal regardless of who
implements it, but tell me if that is wrong.

[ArseniiPetrovich]

DBIPs that were approved in august are going to be compensated (in a batch with all the contributors' rewards, sent early September)

[justFU7]

Hi @ArseniiPetrovich - a quick note, not chasing the July round (saw @EazyHood's Aug 17 question on that one is still open).

#2687 merged on August 17, so mine would fall into the August batch rather than July's. Flagging it here so it is on the radar for the September summary, and confirming the reward address on file: 0x38f94aA2aEdCD31a66B2BB1ddb0eA6919039596a (Ethereum mainnet, USDC/USDT).

No rush - happy to wait for the normal cycle.

[stmr]

@ArseniiPetrovich registering the Ethereum payout address for August merged work, same format as other contributors in this thread.

USDC/USDT (Ethereum mainnet): 0x10DFE6771131BEc830A7a44D7Be45Ced0741b2b3

Merged this cycle:

• Add language-specific official Algorand SDKs #2844 (merged 2026-08-17)
• data(somnia): add verified bridges, oracles, and faucet tooling #2943 (merged 2026-08-25)

The same address is already on those PR bodies/comments. Flagging them here for the September monthly summary. Not chasing open PRs.

[ItzxFin2323]

@ArseniiPetrovich registering the Ethereum payout address for August merged work, using the same address already present in the PR body.

USDC/USDT (Ethereum mainnet): 0xfBae8Ea49EA6E4e8e7ED8A5e621807650d0f0198

Merged this cycle:

• data(security): fill verified offer names #2871 (merged 2026-08-13)

#3174 remains open and is not included here. Flagging only for the normal monthly settlement; no rush.

[aiirvizionz]

@ArseniiPetrovich registering the Ethereum payout address for our August merged work, using the same project-owned address already present in the PR bodies.

USDC/USDT (Ethereum mainnet): 0x769f7a238c8874148bcA1aE0736295630C28faF7

Merged this cycle:

• Complete MCP credential configuration for CoinGecko, Crypto APIs, MistTrack, and Nodit #2989 (merged 2026-08-17)
• Add Triangle Filecoin faucet and refresh Calibration metadata #2991 (merged 2026-08-17; Filecoin)

Please include only the amounts determined by the official compensator in the normal monthly settlement. #2994 is not included because its compensation review is 0.00 USDC, and open PRs are not included.

[jamilahmadzai]

@ArseniiPetrovich registering the Ethereum payout address for my August merged work, using the same address already present in the PR body.

USDC/USDT (Ethereum mainnet): 0xEA102cf5930eec97b0D39B916F82a46eAeA5f1B7

Merged this cycle:

• Add Somnia LI.FI and Jumper integration listings #2644 (merged 2026-08-14)

Please include only the amount determined by the official compensator in the normal monthly settlement. #2557 is not included because its final suggested compensation is 0.00 USDC, and open PRs are not included.

[EazyHood]

@ArseniiPetrovich registering the Ethereum payout address for my August merged work, using the
same address already on file in this thread.

USDC/USDT (Ethereum mainnet): 0x06f44f4839fd5df4f4670036d028b29dec939363

Merged this cycle:

• Fix Uniblock JSON-RPC docs links #1984 (merged 2026-08-03)
• Fix Gate Web3 wallet links #1985 (merged 2026-08-04)
• Add 9 missing provider logos; fix lunarcrush filename case #2458 (merged 2026-08-04)
• Fix Umbria bridge links #1986 (merged 2026-08-05)
• Remove sunset Blocknative API listings #1988 (merged 2026-08-05)
• Fix OMNIA website links #1989 (merged 2026-08-06)
• Add Certora and Dedaub formal-verification and analysis tooling #2451 (merged 2026-08-07)
• Remove Dapp Pocket: domain lapsed and now redirects to unrelated content #2443 (merged 2026-08-10)
• Update five provider URLs that permanently moved #2444 (merged 2026-08-18)
• Remove Martian Wallet: every domain is dead or repointed elsewhere #2445 (merged 2026-08-18)
• Update six offer URLs that permanently moved #2446 (merged 2026-08-18)
• Remove ERCx: product discontinued, domain no longer resolves #2448 (merged 2026-08-18)
• Add Code4rena, Sherlock and Immunefi audit platforms #2452 (merged 2026-08-27)

Ten of these carry a compensation review, including #2452, which was assessed at 1.26 USDC earlier
today. #2445, #2446 and #2448 do not have one yet — they merged on 18 Aug, so they have been
waiting eleven days while a PR merged nine days later was assessed in two. Flagging them only so
the batch is complete; please include whatever the compensator determines, including zero where
that is the verdict.

Open PRs are not included.

[EazyHood]

@ArseniiPetrovich — a heads-up for the September reconciliation, so that my address does not get tied to work that is not mine.

29 of the 36 PRs opened by @Larslllllll on 2–3 September (e.g. #3562, #3589, #3592) carry my rewards address in their "Reward address" line: 0x06f44f4839fd5df4f4670036d028b29dec939363.

I have no connection with that account and did not ask for this. The line looks copied from PR bodies in this repo: one of those PRs (#3567) carries another contributor's address from this thread instead. None of the 36 is merged as of today.

Please do not attribute those PRs to me, and do not route any reward for them to my address. What I am claiming is only the work under my own account: the merged PRs I listed above on Aug 29, and my four approved DBIPs (#2460, #2481, #2681, #2682).