Skip to main content
Independent MeasurementEndpoint record (L0 · L1)Published state: passLast probed: 2026-09-28 · 1 day ago

api.socialfetch.dev/v1/linkedin/posts/search

1.Catalog declaration

Catalog declaration for this endpoint
Resource URLhttps://api.socialfetch.dev/v1/linkedin/posts/search
Sourcecdp_bazaar
Declared methodGET
Networkeip155:8453
Receiving address0x02c2fcafce36b4aadb39625866bc6b1699d83043
Declared price (base units)14000
Catalog statusactive
First seen / last seen2026-08-14 08:39 UTC / 2026-09-29 01:02 UTC
Catalog-reported calls / payers (30d)28 / 4

2.Probe history

2026-09-082026-09-28
Figure 1. Probe timeline, last 30 probes for this endpoint (UTC). Filled = pass, crossed = fail, dashed = unverified. Same-day probes overlap. Marks closer than one mark width are stepped down one lane.
L0 probe history, newest first
Probed atMethodVerdictHTTPLatencyReason
2026-09-28 16:40 UTCGETpass40296 ms—
2026-09-27 22:40 UTCGETpass402235 ms—
2026-09-27 04:40 UTCGETpass4021967 ms—
2026-09-26 13:40 UTCGETpass402352 ms—
2026-09-25 16:40 UTCGETpass402174 ms—
2026-09-24 22:40 UTCGETpass402108 ms—
2026-09-24 04:40 UTCGETpass4022420 ms—
2026-09-23 13:40 UTCGETpass402590 ms—
2026-09-22 16:40 UTCGETpass402185 ms—
2026-09-21 22:40 UTCGETpass40253 ms—
2026-09-21 04:40 UTCGETpass40286 ms—
2026-09-20 13:40 UTCGETpass40281 ms—
2026-09-19 22:40 UTCGETpass402203 ms—
2026-09-19 04:40 UTCGETpass402195 ms—
2026-09-18 13:40 UTCGETpass402132 ms—
2026-09-17 16:40 UTCGETpass402130 ms—
2026-09-17 04:40 UTCGETpass402681 ms—
2026-09-16 13:40 UTCGETpass40269 ms—
2026-09-15 13:40 UTCGETpass402200 ms—
2026-09-14 22:40 UTCGETpass402257 ms—
2026-09-14 04:40 UTCGETpass40290 ms—
2026-09-13 16:40 UTCGETpass402207 ms—
2026-09-12 22:40 UTCGETpass402151 ms—
2026-09-12 13:40 UTCGETpass402129 ms—
2026-09-11 22:40 UTCGETpass402388 ms—
2026-09-11 04:40 UTCGETpass40258 ms—
2026-09-10 17:40 UTCGETpass402614 ms—
2026-09-10 05:40 UTCGETpass402393 ms—
2026-09-09 14:40 UTCGETpass40281 ms—
2026-09-08 23:40 UTCGETpass402105 ms—

3.L1 — real purchases

0 of 3 paid attempts settled with a receipt, and 0 of those also returned a 2xx response (delivered). Each settled row carries its on-chain transaction hash — the receipt is the evidence. A settled row reads as nonce-bound when the on-chain re-read also matched the one-time signature nonce we generated for that purchase, and amount + payee when it matched amount, payee, asset and chain with no nonce on record — the binding shipped on 2026-09-04, so earlier rows carry the weaker evidence and keep their label rather than being demoted (methodology). settled is the transfer we confirmed on-chain; delivered is the response arriving. A settled row whose paid request answered 5xx counts as settled and not as delivered — definitions.

3 of those paid attempts are held as inconclusive rather than counted against this seller (0 settled and answered 4xx, 2 answered 4xx with no settlement receipt, 1 answered 402 or 5xx while our own payer wallet was out of USDC, 2026-09-13 00:00 to 2026-09-15 23:49 UTC). A 4xx says the request was not one the server would accept, and we cannot rule out that the request was ours to get wrong: vet402 buys with no API key of the seller's, and sends a POST body only when the seller declares one. This is the same principle the methodology already applied to path_template URLs, applied to the body and the authentication header as well. The rows are not deleted and not hidden — they are below, with their status and HTTP code, and they are out of the denominator for delivered (corrections).

3 of the paid attempts failed on vet402's side (for example our wallet was out of USDC, or we did not send the input the listing declares). The rows stay in the table.

Terms in this table

settle_failed
vet402 signed a payment and got no settlement receipt back.
unsettled_4xx
held_reason in the export: the paid request got a 4xx with no settlement receipt and no transaction.
payer_unfunded
held_reason in the export: a 402 or 5xx while vet402's Base wallet was out of USDC (2026-09-13 to 2026-09-15).
L2 not_checked
not checked: the paid request did not answer 200, so there was no response to check against the listing's output schema.
Whose side
the same words as the seller page: seller's side only after failures on two different days (UTC), marked “under re-check”; vet402's side; or not sorted (the rules).
0/3
Figure 2. Settle-through: one cell per paid attempt. Filled = settled with an on-chain receipt, crossed = paid but no receipt.
L1 purchase history, newest first
Attempted atResultHTTPReceipt (tx)Latency
09-20 18:02settle_failed400—479 ms
14000 units (≈ $0.01 USDC) · L2 not_checkedWhose side: vet402's side
09-14 00:01settle_failed402—350 ms
14000 units (≈ $0.01 USDC) · L2 not_checkedWhose side: vet402's side
09-06 07:00settle_failed400—328 ms
14000 units (≈ $0.01 USDC) · L2 not_checkedWhose side: vet402's side

Get one email when this record's verdict changes. No digest, no marketing — one message per change, and only for this endpoint. We first send one confirmation email; nothing else goes out until you confirm.

4.Catalog listing events

No listing changes observed.

unverified is not a failure; a fail is published only after two consecutive failing probes. Definitions: methodology.

5.Dispute this record

Think a measurement above is wrong? Say which probe or purchase and what you observed instead. One person reads it and replies. The record is never deleted on dispute: if it was wrong, the correction is published with the same weight; if it was right, it stands. Operators who control the receiving address can also sign a dispute via POST /api/v1/observatory/disputes (API reference), which re-measures through the normal publication gate.

About the purchase at 2026-09-06T07:00:38Z (UTC). The form starts with that time; add what you saw instead.