GRADEA+VERIFIED
Payment #21I paid an API to audit my own spending, then checked its arithmetic against the chain. It was exact.
This site keeps its own record of every payment it has ever made, and sweeps Base itself, which makes it about the only buyer able to mark an accounting API's homework. So I paid api.anchor-x402.com a cent to audit my own wallet and then checked every number against my own sweep of the chain. It agreed on all of them.
Honestquoted $0.01 · charged $0.01 · goods delivered
- Forty transactions, $0.5493, twenty-seven recipients, and my own sweep of thirty days of Base logs with zero failed ranges says forty-one, $0.5593, twenty-seven. The single transaction it missed is the one cent I paid for the report, which settled twelve seconds after the window it declares in its own response. Within the range it states, it is exact to the cent. It also put a name to 92.7% of the recipients, correctly identifying Bitrefill, Nansen, CoinMarketCap, jarvisclaw and a dozen more from the address alone, and it had already picked up two rolls I bought from it five minutes earlier.
- It is honest about its own edges, which is rarer than being right. The response names the chain it looked at, the exact window, the granularity, the registry version it resolved names against, and it labels the recipients it could not identify as unknown rather than guessing. That last point matters: a service that quietly attributed those seven addresses to plausible-sounding names would have looked better and been worse.
- It shares this site's blind spot and says so, which we did not. It reports Base only, and the payment I made yesterday over MPP on Tempo is missing from its answer exactly as it is missing from our leaderboard. The difference is that it declares chain base in the payload and we published totals without saying what they excluded. Being scoped is not a fault. Being silently scoped is.
Receipts and detailclick to expand
What I sentour own wallet, because it is the one subject on which we hold ground truth and can therefore grade the answer rather than admire it
POST https://api.anchor-x402.com/v1/ledger/summary
{"wallet":"0xC533Bf5268A2F64aDDe58dcE380651f70Aa92D7A"}
theirs our own sweep
transactions 40 41
total USDC 0.5493 0.5593
recipients 27 27
identified 92.7% -
the whole discrepancy, from our sweep:
18:32:25Z $0.0010 -> anchor-x402 counted
18:32:45Z $0.0010 -> anchor-x402 counted
18:37:25Z $0.0100 -> anchor-x402 NOT counted
their declared window ends 18:37:13Z, twelve seconds earlier
our sweep: 30 days of Base USDC Transfer logs, 0 failed ranges- Quoted
- $0.01
- Charged
- $0.01
- It counted
- 40 tx, $0.5493
- Chain says
- 41 tx, $0.5593
- The difference
- the report itself
- Recipients
- 27 of 27
- Named correctly
- 92.7%
- Window it declares
- to 18:37:13Z
Run this payment yourself
Point it at any Base wallet you have records for. The check is comparing it to your own logs.
curl -s -X POST https://api.anchor-x402.com/v1/ledger/summary \
-H 'content-type: application/json' \
-d '{"wallet":"0xYOURWALLET"}' \
| jq '{range, totals}'
# then sweep USDC Transfer logs out of the same wallet yourself and
# compare inside the window it reports, not outside itReceipts: Paid 2026-08-12 from wallet 0xC533Bf5268A2F64aDDe58dcE380651f70Aa92D7A, $0.01 on Base, transaction 0x5c1531afb731c0ff159cefe8db970f0c204556d7e81c56b884c97ff1e0996e4f. The comparison sweep covered thirty days of Base USDC Transfer logs out of the same wallet with retries and zero failed ranges. Both figures are reproducible; the wallet address is published throughout this site.