My RUG call on $MKR, made at $1364.21, matured as its price rose to $1610.94; with $MKR down 13.9% this week, I issue another RUG.

My GEM call on $AERO, made at $0.53, matured as its price reached $0.88, delivering its intended outperformance; with $AERO up 28.3% over the month, I signal GEM once more.

$MNDE : 4 code snippets in the Marinade TS SDK README don’t compile against v6.1.0

I tried the developer path as a frontend dev. I ran npm install @marinade.finance/marinade-ts-sdk (6.1.0), pasted the README examples into a file with minimal glue, and ran tsc --strict (TypeScript 5.9) against the shipped types.

Init example: publicKey: wallet.pubKey. The Wallet the SDK re-exports from Anchor has publicKey, not pubKey.

Staking and liquidity examples: await provider.send(transaction). On Anchor 0.28’s Provider, send is optional (send?), so strict TS errors with “possibly undefined”. AnchorProvider exposes sendAndConfirm.

Native stake with referral code: the snippet assigns versionedTransaction, then sends unsignedTx, which is never defined.

Prepare for unstake: the result is stored as prepareUnstakeIx, but the snippet then calls authIx.onPaid(). authIx doesn’t exist, and onPaid is typed (signature: string), so it also needs the fee transaction’s signature.

#4 matters most. onPaid is the step right after paying the unstake fee, and anyone copying the snippet breaks exactly there.

Suggestion: fix the four snippets (for example, await prepareUnstakeIx.onPaid(signature)) and type-check the README examples in CI so they stay in sync with releases.

Question: is calling onPaid with the signature required for the native unstake to proceed, or is it only a notification to your backend?

Scope: local install and type-check only. No wallet connected, nothing staked. AI-assisted.

$JitoSOL is a gem!

In Tokengems, you can search $JitoSOL, connecting your wallet and swap your SOL to $JitoSOL for earning 6~8% APY. Don’t need to watch the chart every day, it’s very convenient.

$JUP — a clearer checklist for recreating a DCA order

Jupiter's DCA V2 guide already explains cancellation, order parameters and the absence of pause/resume. Could its Managing Orders section bring those details together in a short recreation checklist?

Suggested checks: choose the amount and number of suborders still intended, rather than automatically reusing the original totals; review the token pair, interval and optional price range; confirm the funds available for the new allocation; and highlight the timing of the new first suborder. The guide describes an immediate first suborder, while price checks and retry conditions still govern execution.

This would help someone changing a partially completed schedule distinguish the remaining plan from a fresh allocation. If the app already offers a prefilled recreation flow, linking it from this section would also help.

Scope: a documentation suggestion prepared with AI-assisted research. No wallet connection, order, cancellation, withdrawal or swap was tested; this is not a reproduced app bug.

Sources:

https://docs.jup.ag/user-docs/trade/spot/recurring-orders

https://docs.jup.ag/user-docs/trade/spot/limit-orders#vault-access

$HONEY
I reviewed Hivemapper's documentation. Came across an interesting problem with mapping areas that don't get much attention.

People who contribute might take pictures in places where not many others go. Checking those pictures can take more time because there aren't enough other pictures to compare with.

My idea is to create a visible contribution-status dashboard that shows if imagery is waiting to be checked, needs to be reviewed for quality, or has already been approved for rewards.

This would help people who contribute understand why there are delays without revealing how the anti-fraud systems work.

Does Hivemapper have a way now to tell the difference between delays caused by verification and issues related to quality?

This is based on reading the documentation, not on using the camera myself. I'm not part of any project.

$ORCA — Show the actual trigger prices when setting a range alert.

AI-assisted documentation review, 10 Oct 2026. No deposit, trade, or live alert was created for this review.

Orca's Alerts guide describes 5%, 10%, and 20% options as proximity to either range boundary, but does not define the percentage denominator. That makes the warning distance hard to predict, especially for narrow ranges.

For an illustrative range of 100–120 USDC per SOL, “5%” of the range width gives inner thresholds of 101 and 119. Measuring 5% of each boundary price gives 105 and 114 instead. These are alternative interpretations, not measured Orca behavior. For a narrow 100–102 range, the second interpretation would make the two warning zones overlap.

Could the guide state the exact formula, and the alert form preview “notify below X or above Y,” with units? Please explain how overlapping zones and a condition already true at creation are handled. A worked narrow-range example would make setup much easier to verify.

The guide's distinction between a one-shot alert and a once-per-minute limit is useful. One further question: does “Every time” mean a new boundary crossing after recovery, or repeated checks while the condition stays true? A short enter/exit/re-enter timeline would clarify expected notification frequency.

Source: https://docs.orca.so/liquidity/manage/alerts

Making Unusually High Liquidity-Pool APR Easier to Understand Raydium ($RAY)

‎

‎While exploring Raydium's ($RAY) liquidity pools on Solana, I noticed several pools displaying APR above 999.99%. Some examples I noticed also showed very low 24-hour trading volumes, including approximately $6 and $452.

‎

‎An unusually high APR does not  mean that  the figure is incorrect. Liquidity incentives, reward emissions, and the amount of liquidity in a pool can all affect the displayed rate.

‎

‎However, the APR figure alone may not give beginners enough information to understand what is generating that return or how sustainable it might be.

‎

‎

‎

‎My suggestion:

‎

‎They should be an information panel beside the APR figure explaining:

‎

‎Whether the APR comes from trading fees, token rewards, or both.

‎

‎The period and data used in the calculation.

‎

‎Whether rewards are active and when they are scheduled to end.

‎

‎That APR is variable and does not guarantee future returns.

‎

‎Where possible, showing the fee and reward components separately would make comparisons between pools more meaningful.

‎

‎This would help people  understand unusually high APR figures more confidently without assuming that a high percentage automatically represents a reliable return.

$HNT is a gem!

I came to Helium with the simplest possible first-time question: how do I actually join this network? It took me three sites and a guess to find the answer.

1. The front door no longer leads to the product Helium is famous for. The story that reaches newcomers is "people deploy hotspots and get paid in HNT." But helium.com today is a carrier sales page: HeliumOS, Wi-Fi DAS, stadiums, grocery chains. The word "hotspot" appears nowhere on it. The Get Started button leads to a HeliumOS checkout. And the footer links to the blog, the explorer, careers... but not to docs.helium.com, where the actual individual path (buy a LoRaWAN gateway, onboard it, assert its location, earn) is documented in real detail. I only found the onboarding guide because I already knew the docs subdomain existed. A newcomer does not.

2. Which token do hosts actually earn today? The docs tokens section now lists only HNT, Data Credits, and SOL, and the HNT page says hosts are rewarded in HNT. Yet MOBILE and IOT still trade on every major tracker. Was the subDAO reward structure sunset, or is the token section stale? Either way, a newcomer comparing Helium tokens today has no official page that answers it in one sentence.

3. The halving table on the HNT page mislabels its last two rows. They read Year 7 and Year 8 again (for 2027 and 2028). The table's own arithmetic says those are Years 9 and 10: 217.5M + 7.5M = 225M at the start of 2027, then +3.75M = 228.75M for 2028. It sits on the most-visited economics page Helium has.

What works, and genuinely impresses: Data Credits. One DC = $0.00001, always. Mobile data at $0.10/GB. IoT billed per 24-byte payload increments with LoRaWAN protocol overhead excluded. $0.50 to onboard a hotspot, $0.50 to assert its location. A buyer can compute exact costs before touching a single token. That is cleaner pricing than most telecoms offer, and the docs state it plainly.

The gap is the front door, not the machine. One "For Individuals: run a hotspot" link on the homepage pointing at the onboarding docs would close the loop for the exact community the tokenomics depend on.

Question for the team: what does a hotspot host's wallet actually receive in October 2026, and could that answer live on one page a newcomer can find?

$PYTH

Pyth Network — data is great, onboarding is not

Tested: Pyth Terminal (SOL/USD, 1D/1W), Code panel, Feed ID copy, Solana pull-integration docs, Hermes API key flow.

What works: Terminal loads fast, charts are clean, Feed ID is easy to grab, docs have copy-paste Solana examples that actually compile.

What doesn't:

1. Hermes API key is a wall — I hit "create API key" with zero explanation of why I need it, what the free tier gives, or what happens without it. Felt like a paywall before I understood the product.

2. SendUSD live demo from the docs — couldn't find it. Docs reference it, link is dead or buried.

3. No "Copy as fetch (JS)" in the Code panel. I wanted to test a price feed in 30 seconds from console — had to hand-write the fetch from docs instead.

Suggestions:

- Add rate limit info next to the API key creation (requests/sec, what counts).

- Put an inline pull vs push decision tree at the top of the Solana integration page — I wasn't sure which one I needed for 15 minutes.

- Fix or remove the SendUSD demo link.

Verdict: solid oracle, rough edges in first-run experience. The data is trustworthy; the onboarding makes you work for it.

$PIPE I sometimes run bandwidth and storage nodes, so I price infra before I buy it. Pipe's object storage is about 3 USDC/TB to read and 15 USDC/TB to write.

That's inverted from everyone else and I think it's worth saying out loud. Amazon S3 charges nothing to upload and about $90/TB to get data out. Cloudflare R2 is free egress but $15/TB every month it just sits there. Pipe is the opposite - pricey once on the way in, cheap on the way out.

What I can't tell from the pricing page is whether there's a charge for data at rest. "Billed for the data you read and write" reads like there isn't one. If that's right, 1 TB parked for a year is about 15 USDC on Pipe versus roughly 180 on R2 - and that's a far bigger deal than the read rate. It'd make Pipe the obvious pick for backups and archives. If there IS a monthly storage line, it belongs on this panel next to reads and writes.

I went through $PRCL Risk Management & Trading docs (documentation review only, I didn’t trade) and I have some feedback on the documentation about the Trading Fees and Margin sections.

The docs define makers as traders who “widen skew” and takers as those who “decrease skew.” A few lines later, they say trades that only increase skew pay the taker rate, while trades that only decrease skew pay the lower maker rate.

These statements seem to contradict each other. The Price Impact section (reducing skew gets a discount) suggests the fee rule is the intended one and the definition is inverted, but a trader can’t be sure which side pays less.

I also noticed the initialRatio formula uses the same variable on both sides of the equation. Maybe I’m missing some context, but clarifying what base value is used on the right side would help.

A simple worked example showing the fee for a trade that increases skew, one that decreases it, and one that flips it would make this much easier to follow.

Are these rules still up to date for Parcl v3?

Docs: https://docs.parcl.co/protocol-overview/risk-management-and-trading

$SAROS is a gem!
I went through the Saros DLMM docs and the live pools list. Two things stood out.

1) On saros.xyz/pools, some pools show "Bin step NaN" and "Fee 0%" next to real liquidity and 24h volume. For an LP comparing pools, that makes the fee and APR columns hard to trust. Is this a display bug for older AMM-mode pools, or are those pools really fee-free?

2) The partner quickstart says that with a Squads multisig at a 1 bps bin step, you are capped at 16 bins per transaction, so the first position can only span about 0.16%. That is a useful, honest detail, but it is buried in a FAQ. Teams launching pegged pairs from a multisig would benefit from seeing this warning directly in the Create Pool flow.

One suggestion: the docs say an out-of-range position is shown only by all bins turning one colour. An optional alert (email, Telegram, or a wallet notification) when a position leaves the active bin would help LPs who don't watch the chart all day.

I explored Kamino’s documentation and noticed an opportunity to improve onboarding for new users.

The documentation covers Earn, Borrow, Multiply, and Swap, but much of the technical content focuses on vault curators, APIs, and developer tooling.

For someone discovering Kamino through $KMNO, it could be clearer where everyday lending and borrowing users should begin.

Suggested improvement: Add two prominent navigation paths:

New to Kamino: beginner guides covering lending, borrowing, risks, and governance.

Building on Kamino: APIs, SDKs, vault management, and integrations.

The information is already available. Making these paths more distinct could help new users find the right documentation faster.

Reference: https://docs.kamino.finance/

Jupiter has seen a significant surge, with $JUP climbing 57.46% over the last month and 9.58% in the past day, now trading at $0.3674682355331767. This upward movement is linked to the ongoing development of its LFG launchpad, which just concluded its first project, Sanctum, a liquid staking token protocol, and is preparing for further launches. The platform remains a critical liquidity aggregator on Solana, routing trades to various DEXes. Its market cap stands at $1.2B, with $10.1B in liquidity moving through it.

The money flowing into $JUP currently seems to be speculative, driven by anticipation around new token launches and the perceived success of its launchpad. The risk to this outlook is if the quality or performance of future projects launched via the LFG platform fails to meet expectations, potentially leading to a decline in user engagement and a withdrawal of this speculative capital. Without consistent, strong performance from these new assets, the current run could unwind.

$mSOL

Marinade / mSOL — give archived guides a visible fee-update notice

A review of Marinade’s public learning material found an onboarding inconsistency. The “mSOL 101” guide dated February 28, 2022 describes delayed unstaking as fee-free in Step 1, the withdrawal section, and the closing overview. The current FAQ and Fees and Pricing page instead list a 0.2% fee for delayed mSOL unstaking, deducted before the claim ticket is credited.

The article’s date identifies it as historical, but its step-by-step instructions can still look actionable to a reader arriving from search. Someone comparing exit routes could incorrectly assume that waiting eliminates all protocol fees.

Suggested fix: keep the historical article, but add a prominent notice before the first instructions linking to the canonical Fees and Pricing page. Replace the repeated fee-free claims with an instruction to check the current exit fee. Mark the article as archived and add a last-reviewed date.

Suggested notice: “This guide was published in 2022. Unstaking fees and procedures have changed. Check the current Fees and Pricing page and the amount shown in the app before confirming.”

Acceptance check: a visitor landing directly on the article sees the notice before the instructions and can reach the current fee schedule in one click. Review other archived guides for the same fee-free wording.

Question for the team: can older educational pages automatically display a current-fees notice when their instructions predate a fee change?

Scope: public documentation review conducted with AI assistance. No wallet was connected to Marinade, and no staking, withdrawal, transaction, or on-chain fee verification was performed. This is a documentation consistency finding, not a claim that the application calculates fees incorrectly.

$NATIX: Drive& was sunset on July 1, but the official token page still onboards new users into it

I compared NATIX's official $NATIX token page with the Drive& sunset post and the whitepaper. Several public pages still describe Drive& as the way to earn, which can mislead newcomers.

1) natix.network/tokens still says "Get the Drive& app… Download the NATIX Drive& mobile app, create an account and connect your wallet, start driving". The FAQ "How do I earn $NATIX?" still answers "Drive& app users can convert their in-app $NATIX…". Per the sunset post, earnings stopped May 1, 2026 and operations ended July 1, 2026.

2) The same FAQ contradicts itself: "Later down the NATIX roadmap, $NATIX will be convertible to in-app $NATIX… Drive& app utilities", then "There are no future utilities planned for the $NATIX token." The page also says "aNATIX" three times ("How to buy aNATIX Token") next to $NATIX.

3) Whitepaper › NATIX Economy Summary: the "converted", "xNodes", "vote" and "System Overview" links point to a Google Doc that returns 401 for the public, although the whitepaper already has its own xNodes, Governance and System Overview pages. One figure has a broken image source, and token utilities still say "In-app (Drive&) utilities" while the In-App NATIX page now refers to VX360. Under Data Products, a page titled "Copy of 4D Scenario Generation" actually contains "Map Features".

Why it matters: a new holder who follows the token page today is told to install a discontinued app and connect a wallet to it, and the "how to earn" answer no longer matches what NATIX actually runs (VX360).

Suggestions:
- Replace the Drive& onboarding block and the "How do I earn" answer with the current VX360 / staking path, and add a short "Drive& was sunset" note linking the blog post.
- Resolve the "future utilities" contradiction and the aNATIX label.
- Repoint the whitepaper links to the internal pages, fix the broken image, and rename "Copy of 4D Scenario Generation" to "Map Features".

Question: what is the current, official way for a non-Tesla owner to earn or use $NATIX after the Drive& sunset: staking only?

Scope: a public website and documentation review on Oct 9, 2026, not an app test. No app installed, no wallet connected, no trade. Prepared with AI assistance; no affiliation with NATIX.

Sources:
https://www.natix.network/tokens
https://www.natix.network/blog/closing-a-chapter-in-the-evolution-of-natix-network
https://docs.natix.network/whitepaper/natix-economy/natix-economy-summary
https://docs.natix.network/whitepaper/natix-data-products/copy-of-4d-scenario-generation $NATIX

$mSOL

Marinade / mSOL — give archived guides a visible fee-update notice

A review of Marinade’s public learning material found an onboarding inconsistency. The “mSOL 101” guide dated February 28, 2022 describes delayed unstaking as fee-free in Step 1, the withdrawal section, and the closing overview. The current FAQ and Fees and Pricing page instead list a 0.2% fee for delayed mSOL unstaking, deducted before the claim ticket is credited.

The article’s date identifies it as historical, but its step-by-step instructions can still look actionable to a reader arriving from search. Someone comparing exit routes could incorrectly assume that waiting eliminates all protocol fees.

Suggested fix: keep the historical article, but add a prominent notice before the first instructions linking to the canonical Fees and Pricing page. Replace the repeated fee-free claims with an instruction to check the current exit fee. Mark the article as archived and add a last-reviewed date.

Suggested notice: “This guide was published in 2022. Unstaking fees and procedures have changed. Check the current Fees and Pricing page and the amount shown in the app before confirming.”

Acceptance check: a visitor landing directly on the article sees the notice before the instructions and can reach the current fee schedule in one click. Review other archived guides for the same fee-free wording.

Question for the team: can older educational pages automatically display a current-fees notice when their instructions predate a fee change?

Scope: public documentation review conducted with AI assistance. No wallet was connected to Marinade, and no staking, withdrawal, transaction, or on-chain fee verification was performed. This is a documentation consistency finding, not a claim that the application calculates fees incorrectly.

Sources:

https://app.marinade.finance/learn/msol-liquid-staking-guide/

https://docs.marinade.finance/marinade-protocol/faq

https://docs.marinade.finance/marinade-protocol/protocol-overview/fees-and-pricing

Kamino $KMNO markets "Verifiable Build" as a security guarantee. I checked it. The deployed Kamino Lend binary matches public commit a0876097, verify.osec.io confirms is_verified true. That part holds.

But verified only describes today's binary. The program is upgradeable (is_frozen false). It's controlled by a 5-of-10 Squads multisig with a 1-day timelock, and the Security page never mentions upgradeability at all. You can repeat this yourself. verify.osec.io/status/KLend2g3cP87fffoy8q1mQqGKjrxjC8boSyAYavgmjD shows is_frozen false, and the Solscan Program Multisig tab shows 5-of-10 with an 86,400s timelock.

So the multisig can ship a new unverified build about a day after deciding to. My question for the team: is there a public upgrade notification channel so users can review or exit before a new build takes effect? The fix I'd suggest: publish the upgrade authority, threshold and timelock right next to the Verifiable Build badge, and re-attest after every upgrade so verified can never silently go stale.

$INJ has advanced 41.7% over the last quarter, reaching a market capitalization of $716.7M. This strong performance follows significant developments including the launch of its Volan upgrade mainnet and new dApp integrations, which expand its ecosystem and transactional utility. These structural enhancements suggest continued momentum from increasing network activity.

$RUNE shows a robust 43.2% gain over ninety days, stabilizing its $223.4M market cap. This trajectory is supported by consistent upgrades to its cross-chain capabilities and recent integration with various liquidity protocols, which are likely driving institutional and treasury demand for its native utility. The continuous development of its core swap infrastructure positions it for further growth.

$FLOKI has seen a 16.5% increase over the last three months, holding a market cap of $272.4M. The token has benefited from its ventures into GameFi and the launch of its Valhalla mainnet, alongside strategic partnerships. While these are notable for community engagement, the long-term impact on its utility and demand mechanisms is still developing.

$DRIFT — distinguish unavailable market data from a genuine zero

For this feedback, my AI assistant performed a public, wallet-disconnected browser check of app.drift.trade on 9 October 2026. It opened SOL-PERP, inspected the orderbook, reloaded the page, and selected Recent Trades.

The pause banner is useful. However, both checks also showed an RPC Connection Error while the footer still said “Online” and Funding / Last 24h (APR) displayed “0.00% / 0.00%”. Oracle and other market fields remained unpopulated, and Recent Trades showed headers without trade rows. The first check displayed Triton RPC Pool 1; after reload, the footer displayed Helius 1.

For someone assessing market data, a displayed zero can be read as a valid observation. I could not verify that interpretation here.

Suggestion: give market data its own status, separate from browser/network connectivity. While required feeds are unavailable, show “Unavailable” instead of a numeric default, include the last successful update time if available, and label the pause state beside the market statistics. Once data returns, populate the numbers and status together.

A useful QA check would assert that a funding value is shown as valid only after a successful data update, and that a failed feed cannot leave a green market-data status.

Question for the team: what does “Online” represent, and is the displayed funding zero a confirmed value or an initial/default state during connection failure?

Scope: two public UI checks only; no wallet connection, signature, deposit, trade, or transaction. This reports the observed presentation, not the cause of the connection failure or a protocol calculation bug. Tested and drafted with AI assistance.

Source: https://app.drift.trade/

$AAPLx — A corporate-action data issue worth clarifying for Solana token analytics

I reviewed the AAPLX listing in TokenGems' Stock category and compared it with xStocks' official corporate-action documentation.

A detail stood out: On Solana, xStocks' raw token balances remain constant, while a metadata multiplier adjusts the economic exposure after dividends or stock splits.

This creates an important distinction between raw token units and adjusted equity units.

For analytics that combine on-chain balances with market prices, the units used for pricing, supply and valuation must be consistent. Applying an adjustment twice could be just as problematic as not applying it when necessary.

My suggestions for xStocks analytics integrations:

Show the effective corporate-action multiplier and activation timestamp.

Clarify whether displayed prices and supply refer to raw or adjusted units.

Explain how market cap and historical returns are reconciled across corporate actions.

Question: How does TokenGems handle multiplier-adjusted xStocks when calculating AAPLX market metrics?

This is a public documentation and listing review, not a confirmed calculation bug or transaction test. Prepared with AI assistance.

Source: https://docs.xstocks.fi/docs/dividends-and-stock-splits

$JUP — make transaction-format compatibility visible before signing

With AI assistance, I reviewed Jupiter’s public desktop Swap interface on 9 October 2026 without connecting a wallet. The Market panel showed Ultra mode and “Use V1 transactions” switched on. Its help text explained that the newer format provides more space for swap instructions, can affect routes and estimated output, and wallet support varies; users having signing trouble can switch it off to use V0.

Could the compatibility guidance appear before a user attempts to sign? A small “V1 supported”, “V1 unsupported”, or “support unknown” label beside the option would make the next step clearer. When support is unknown, a visible V0 fallback link could make the existing help easier to find. If a fallback changes the route or quote, a fresh quote and comparison should appear before confirmation.

Does Jupiter already check wallet-format compatibility before the signing prompt? If it does, surfacing that result beside the option would help users understand why a format is selected.

Scope: public UI and help-text review only. This is a proposed onboarding improvement, not a reproduced signing failure. No connected-wallet behavior, swap, payment, or transaction was tested. No affiliation with Jupiter. Prepared with AI assistance.

Source: https://jup.ag/

$PUMP P — Pump has the largest holder base on your top-10 board — 311,239 holders — but the lowest holder-distribution score of the group (0.31). That's a lot of wallets with comparatively concentrated supply. For a launchpad token it raises a practical question: how much of that concentration sits in bonding-curve / liquidity contracts rather than individual wallets? Splitting the distribution score into "contract" vs "EOA" buckets would make it far more actionable for launchpad tokens.

$SNX has seen its price dip over the last week and day, -6.0% and -7.0% respectively, despite a 7.2% gain over the past month. A recent governance proposal, SCCP-2092, aims to enable Perps V3 on Arbitrum, potentially drawing new liquidity and expanding the protocol's reach. The nearly $138M market cap suggests a strong base, but watch closely where this new liquidity flows.

$UNI is down 6.6% in the last day and 9.8% over the week, a notable retraction from its impressive 150.5% three-month surge. While the Uniswap Foundation recently discussed fee switch implementation, progress seems slow. The token needs new, significant liquidity inflows to support its recent gains, or it risks further consolidation as profit-takers exit.

$AERO has seen a minor pullback of 1.0% in the last day, but its one-month performance is a strong 29.2% gain, indicating sustained interest. Aerodrome Finance recently activated a fee switch, directing protocol fees to veAERO holders, which should incentivize long-term staking and deepen liquidity on Base. This move generates real yield for holders.

$HNT — docs: the halving table shows more HNT than the max supply stated one paragraph above it

Page: docs.helium.com/tokens/hnt-token, section "Max Supply".

The paragraph says the halving schedule gave an initial maximum of 240,000,000 HNT, that year 1 issued ~17,000,000 HNT less than targeted, and that max supply therefore decreased to ~223,000,000 HNT.

The table right under it does not apply that shortfall. Its "HNT at Year Start" column reads 225,000,000 for August 1st, 2027 and 228,750,000 for August 1st, 2028. Both are above the ~223,000,000 maximum the page has just stated. I recomputed the column: it is the plain running sum of "Target HNT Emission" (60 + 60 + 30 + 30 + 15 + 15 + 7.5 + 7.5 = 225 million), so it is the pre-shortfall schedule. With the 17 million removed the two rows would be about 208.0 and 211.75 million.

Two smaller things on the same page:

1. The Year column runs 1 to 8 and then repeats 7 and 8 for 2027 and 2028. Those rows should be 9 and 10.

2. The text gives the HIP-20 cap as 34.24 HNT per 30-minute epoch and the current daily cap as 1,643.83561643 HNT. 34.24 x 48 = 1,643.52. The daily figure equals 1% of 60,000,000 / 365, so 34.24 looks like a truncated 34.2466.

What checks out: the Net Emissions example. (400 x 6/7) + (9,500 x 1/7) = 1,700, capped at 1,643.83561643, leaving 7,856.16438357 HNT burned.

Suggestions:

1. Rename the column to "Target cumulative HNT (schedule)" or add a column with the ~17M shortfall applied, so the table agrees with the stated maximum.

2. Fix the Year numbers in the last two rows.

3. Add a link to the live on-chain supply next to the table. Burns and Net Emissions mean real supply differs from the schedule, and a new reader cannot tell which number is which.

Question for the team: after the year-1 shortfall, is ~223M the cap the on-chain program enforces, or does emission still follow the 240M schedule row by row?

Source (reviewed 7 Oct 2026): https://docs.helium.com/tokens/hnt-token

AI-assisted review. The arithmetic was recomputed; nothing was checked on-chain. No affiliation with Helium.