# Kairos Design Partner Brief — 2026-10-25

*Generated 2026-10-25T08:00:01Z — every number below is measured, carries its source and as-of time, and can be re-derived from the live API. Windows are stated; nothing is interpolated or forecast.*

## The verdict

**What is scarce here.** Both halves of a utilisation ratio — capacity AND consumption — on 5 networks: AKT, FIL, FLUX, SC, TFT; plus an active-device share (active devices divided by total devices — connected, hired or idle, not consumption) on IO. Node counts are public everywhere; the denominator is not. This is the entire reason the ledger below can exist, and it is why coverage, not commentary, is what we sell.

**The sharpest thing the data says in this edition.** AKT gpus: utilisation 31.64% → 71.0%, with demand growing 110.18pp faster than capacity over 2026-08-09 → 2026-10-25 (77d).

Recorded use grew faster than capacity over this window. This does not establish a capacity bottleneck, paid demand, or an onboarding constraint.

**Also in this edition:** 12 metric-name candidates with unchanged stored observations (cause unverified); 150 of 216 token supplies confirmed by our own chain reads rather than taken on trust.

**Our prior edition (2026-10-24), re-measured:** 2 changed in current window, 1 graduated, 10 held, 1 not comparable, 1 reversed, 1 still withheld, 10 unchanged observations (section 7 — generated from the prior edition's JSON, so a reversal cannot be dropped).

*Every figure ships source, as-of and a verify URL; the utilisation halves are at GET /v1/supply?network=<sym> and this brief is machine-readable at GET /v1/brief. If you can refute a number here, we would rather publish the correction than the number.*

---

## 1. The Allocator's Ledger — capacity vs demand, and active-device share

> For utilisation rows: is this network adding capacity faster than recorded use absorbs it? For active-device share rows (resource: devices): are total devices growing faster than active devices? That share measures neither use nor demand.

| Network | Resource | Window | Ratio, start → end | Denominator Δ | Numerator Δ | Divergence | Read |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FLUX | memory_bytes | 2026-08-24 → 2026-10-24 (61d) | utilisation 9.65% → 6.23% | capacity 8.13% | recorded use -30.13% | 38.26pp | capacity growth exceeds use growth |
| FLUX | compute_cores | 2026-08-24 → 2026-10-24 (61d) | utilisation 16.93% → 12.02% | capacity 6.99% | recorded use -24.06% | 31.05pp | capacity growth exceeds use growth |
| FLUX | storage_bytes | 2026-08-24 → 2026-10-24 (61d) | utilisation 5.18% → 3.66% | capacity 5.22% | recorded use -25.54% | 30.76pp | capacity growth exceeds use growth |
| FIL | storage_bytes | 2026-08-24 → 2026-10-24 (61d) | utilisation 87.89% → 90.2% | capacity -7.99% | recorded use -5.57% | -2.42pp | growth rates within 5pp |
| IO | devices | 2026-08-06 → 2026-10-24 (79d) | active-device share 57.28% → 59.62% | total devices 0.31% | active devices 4.41% | -4.1pp | growth rates within 5pp |
| TFT | memory_bytes | 2026-08-24 → 2026-10-24 (61d) | utilisation 13.87% → 15.48% | capacity -11.56% | recorded use -1.34% | -10.23pp | use growth exceeds capacity growth |
| AKT | storage_bytes | 2026-08-17 → 2026-10-24 (68d) | utilisation 7.98% → 9.23% | capacity -15.41% | recorded use -2.07% | -13.34pp | use growth exceeds capacity growth |
| SC | storage_bytes | 2026-08-20 → 2026-10-24 (65d) | utilisation 25.85% → 30.25% | capacity -5.47% | recorded use 10.62% | -16.09pp | use growth exceeds capacity growth |
| AKT | compute_cores | 2026-08-09 → 2026-10-25 (77d) | utilisation 20.55% → 26.47% | capacity -8.72% | recorded use 17.6% | -26.32pp | use growth exceeds capacity growth |
| TFT | compute_cores | 2026-08-24 → 2026-10-24 (61d) | utilisation 15.02% → 20.06% | capacity -10.35% | recorded use 19.73% | -30.07pp | use growth exceeds capacity growth |
| AKT | memory_bytes | 2026-08-09 → 2026-10-25 (77d) | utilisation 14.92% → 35.21% | capacity -23.1% | recorded use 81.51% | -104.61pp | use growth exceeds capacity growth |
| AKT | gpus | 2026-08-09 → 2026-10-25 (77d) | utilisation 31.64% → 71.0% | capacity -11.41% | recorded use 98.77% | -110.18pp | use growth exceeds capacity growth |
| TFT | storage_bytes | 2026-08-24 → 2026-10-24 (61d) | utilisation 0.0% → 0.0% | capacity 12.24% | recorded use n/a | n/a | not comparable |

*Divergence is denominator growth minus numerator growth. For utilisation rows the denominator is capacity and the numerator is recorded use; this does not establish paid demand, revenue, or a capacity bottleneck. Active-device share rows (resource: devices) divide active devices by total devices; 'active' means connected, hired or idle, not in use, so that share is not utilisation and not demand. Each row states its own window. Undefined growth is n/a.*

- Windows run 61-80 days per pair (anchor days from 2026-08-06 at the earliest to 2026-10-25 at the latest); series are read from 2026-08-06 00:37:10Z. One window per pair, not a trend.
- Descriptive only. Nothing here is a forecast or a trading signal.
- Pairs come from the canonical ontology; units corrected via native_scale.
- Reported only when both halves have >=8 obs over >=3.0d.

**Withheld from the table above (and why):**

- **GLM providers** — base moved 428% over 2026-08-06 → 2026-10-25 (80d), above the 100% review trigger. Crossing the trigger is a reason to review the series, not proof of its cause: a move this large can be a real network change or a coverage or collector change, and this brief has not established which. Withheld from the table while the move stays above the trigger; the raw halves remain queryable via the API.

**Pairs we investigated and decided NOT to publish:**

- **IO gpus** — io.net's GPU_TOTAL is NOT registered GPU supply — on every archived day when this refusal was recorded it equalled DEVICES_ACTIVE exactly, and GPU_HIRED + GPU_IDLE equals GPU_TOTAL exactly. So hired/total is a FILL RATE on the already-active pool, near-tautological, and it excludes every passive (registered but not connected) device. io.net's 'active' means connected through its worker, hired or idle, not in use. Publishing that fill rate beside other networks' utilisation of REGISTERED capacity would compare different quantities. The share of registered devices that are active is reported separately as the IO devices pair — an active-device share (active devices divided by total devices), computed from data for its own window rather than typed here.
- **NOS devices** — NOSANA HAS NO PUBLISHABLE DENOMINATOR (probed 2026-08-24, recorded so the next agent does not re-probe it). The numerator is free and clean — dashboard.k8s.prd.nos.ci/api/jobs?state=RUNNING reports totalJobs=947 running jobs and each Nosana job occupies exactly one node. The denominator is not: /api/nodes and /api/nodes/stats require an authorization header (401 with one, 422 without), and no unauthenticated sibling exposes a node count. Two tempting substitutes were REFUSED. (1) running + queued NODES from /api/markets: that per-market queue holds only IDLE nodes and is 0 across all 47 markets while 43 jobs sit QUEUED, so the denominator would equal the numerator by construction and publish a tautological 100%. (2) per-market access-SFT supply on Solana (231 for the nvidia-3070 market): a node joining three markets holds three SFTs and nothing burns them when it leaves, so the sum counts memberships and departed nodes, not live nodes. The numerator is collected anyway (collectors_clean/nosana_utilisation.py writes NOS JOBS_RUNNING/JOBS_QUEUED/MARKET_IDLE_NODES) so the pair can complete the day Nosana publishes a node count; no ratio until then.
- **SC devices** — SIACOIN'S DENOMINATOR IS CUMULATIVE, NOT LIVE (measured 2026-08-24). Both halves flow — SC_ACTIVE_HOSTS ~530, SC_TOTAL_HOSTS ~87,048 — so the pair LOOKS complete and would auto-publish a 0.6% utilisation figure. It is not a utilisation figure: TOTAL_HOSTS counts every host ever announced to the Sia network and is monotonically non-decreasing across all 19 archived days (87,032.7 → 87,048.0, never once falling), while ACTIVE_HOSTS moves both ways in the 514-556 band. A denominator that can only grow makes the ratio a function of the network's AGE, so it would fall forever regardless of how the network performs — the Storj denominator trap in a new costume. The numerator is honest and stays queryable; no ratio until Sia publishes a currently-announced host count.
- **STORJ storage_bytes** — STORJ PUBLISHES NO CAPACITY DENOMINATOR (measured 2026-08-24). Everything public is the numerator: stats.storjshare.io/data.json gives bytes stored by customers (53.4 PB) and the node-side footprint after erasure coding (92.2 PB, 1.73x), and the per-satellite node counts are memberships, not capacity — a node serving three satellites is counted three times, which is the same double-count that already inflated STORJ node totals. Nothing upstream states how many bytes the network could hold, so any utilisation ratio would need a denominator we invented. The numerator stays collected and is now correctly labelled storage_bytes_in_use rather than storage_bytes_total, which is what it had been resolving to.

## 2. Unchanged observations

*2026-08-17: this is how we caught Akash's own API serving 30.5% GPU utilisation while the measured value was 55.8%.*

Exactly one distinct stored value across >=20 observations spanning >=5 days, while other metrics on the same network change. Counts are stored observations, not independently verified poll attempts. Metric-name hints rank candidates; they do not establish expected cadence. Constant values and single upstream rechecks do not prove a stopped feed. No statistical failure probability is claimed.

**2921 metrics with unchanged stored values** on networks with other changing metrics.

**Candidates selected by metric-name hints; expected cadence is unverified:**

- **JCT `dex_pairs_active`** — unchanged at 1 for 10d across 40 stored observations, while 7 other metrics on JCT kept moving (source: dexscreener_pairs)
- **PHB `dex_gt_venues_active`** — unchanged at 3 for 10d across 40 stored observations, while 7 other metrics on PHB kept moving (source: geckoterminal_dex)
- **FAR `dex_gt_pairs_active`** — unchanged at 2 for 10d across 40 stored observations, while 5 other metrics on FAR kept moving (source: geckoterminal_dex)
- **DPR `dex_pairs_active`** — unchanged at 1 for 10d across 23 stored observations, while 7 other metrics on DPR kept moving (source: dexscreener_pairs)
- **CESS `dex_gt_pairs_active`** — unchanged at 20 for 10d across 40 stored observations, while 8 other metrics on CESS kept moving (source: geckoterminal_dex)
- **ALTHEA `dex_gt_pair_volume_24h_usd`** — unchanged at 0 for 10d across 40 stored observations, while 17 other metrics on ALTHEA kept moving (source: geckoterminal_dex)
- **WINGS `dex_venues_active`** — unchanged at 1 for 10d across 40 stored observations, while 17 other metrics on WINGS kept moving (source: dexscreener_pairs)
- **SPON `dex_venues_active`** — unchanged at 1 for 10d across 26 stored observations, while 11 other metrics on SPON kept moving (source: dexscreener_pairs)
- **STORJ `dex_gt_venues_active`** — unchanged at 4 for 10d across 40 stored observations, while 49 other metrics on STORJ kept moving (source: geckoterminal_dex)
- **OCTA `dex_gt_pairs_active`** — unchanged at 10 for 10d across 40 stored observations, while 5 other metrics on OCTA kept moving (source: geckoterminal_dex)
- **VDA `dex_gt_venues_active`** — unchanged at 4 for 10d across 40 stored observations, while 5 other metrics on VDA kept moving (source: geckoterminal_dex)
- **POKT `dex_gt_pairs_active`** — unchanged at 1 for 10d across 40 stored observations, while 35 other metrics on POKT kept moving (source: geckoterminal_dex)

**Other unchanged observations (cause undetermined):**

- SN68 `SUBNET_COMMIT_REVEAL_ENABLED` — 10d at 1
- SN118 `SUBNET_UIDS_WITH_EMISSION` — 10d at 16
- SN19 `SUBNET_UIDS_WITH_VALIDATOR_TRUST` — 10d at 9
- SN31 `SUBNET_UIDS_WITH_DIVIDENDS` — 10d at 16
- GEEQ `onchain_total_supply` — 10d at 100000000
- SN87 `SUBNET_FIRST_EMISSION_BLOCK` — 10d at 7259593
- ESIM `onchain_burn_address_balance` — 10d at 1
- SN0 `SUBNET_TAO_RECYCLED_FOR_REGISTRATION` — 10d at 4.006213423

## 3. Supply verifiability — what we can confirm on-chain ourselves

Chain-read total supply divided by the aggregator's reported total supply, same day. Decimals are normalised by the collectors. A ratio below 1 usually means the token also lives on chains we do not read; a ratio above 1 means the aggregator is understating.

**150 of 216 networks reconcile to within 1% — those figures are independently confirmed, not taken on trust. Of the other 66, 48 are more than 10% off; the 15 with the lowest ratios are listed with the exact contract we read so you can check in one click.**

*A low ratio is a statement about ONE deployment on ONE chain, not a claim that the aggregator is wrong. Multi-chain tokens (native chain + bridged ERC-20) legitimately show low ratios: e.g. POKT and BTT are native elsewhere and only their wrapped portion is readable on the chain we poll. Verified 2026-08-24 that our reads are faithful to the contract: RIZ reads 100,000 on 0x058d411a..., byte-identical to the explorer's own figure for that contract.*

| Network | Chain read | Aggregator says | Verifiable | Contract we read |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GENE | 261,413 (bsc_rpc) | 100,000,000 | 0.3% | [0x9df46546…](https://bscscan.com/token/0x9df465460938f9ebdf51c38cc87d72184471f8f0) |
| OORT | 20,000,000 (evm_blockscout) | 1,998,900,000 | 1.0% | [0x5651fa7a…](https://eth.blockscout.com/token/0x5651fa7a726b9ec0cad00ee140179912b6e73599) |
| DEUS | 10,211,529 (solana_rpc) | 1,000,000,000 | 1.0% | [7JoGUTeaXk…](https://solscan.io/token/7JoGUTeaXkjcMGa6xJP2idYNYiLreto1WnsACHnpw3Gd) |
| OCTA | 1,173,602 (evm_blockscout) | 44,907,921 | 2.6% | [0xfa704148…](https://eth.blockscout.com/token/0xfa704148d516b209d52c2d75f239274c8f8eaf1a) |
| NMT | 3,831,583 (evm_blockscout) | 143,440,957 | 2.7% | [0x03aa6298…](https://eth.blockscout.com/token/0x03aa6298f1370642642415edc0db8b957783e8d6) |
| BTT | 36,542,206,310,204 (evm_blockscout) | 990,000,000,000,000 | 3.7% | [0xc6699281…](https://eth.blockscout.com/token/0xc669928185dbce49d2230cc9b0979be6dc797957) |
| SDM | 40,043,182 (evm_blockscout) | 1,000,000,000 | 4.0% | [0x9cfe02eb…](https://base.blockscout.com/token/0x9cfe02eb040c6f5718126128dbba0c1d364d9c07) |
| GNUS | 970,019 (evm_blockscout) | 15,193,848 | 6.4% | [0x61457703…](https://eth.blockscout.com/token/0x614577036f0a024dbc1c88ba616b394dd65d105a) |
| NODL | 546,469,427 (evm_blockscout) | 7,491,860,662 | 7.3% | [0x6dd0e17e…](https://eth.blockscout.com/token/0x6dd0e17ec6fe56c5f58a0fe2bb813b9b5cc25990) |
| SLC | 7,495,565,955 (evm_blockscout) | 98,797,933,055 | 7.6% | [0x6bd83abc…](https://base.blockscout.com/token/0x6bd83abc39391af1e24826e90237c4bd3468b5d2) |
| AVAIL | 903,705,728 (evm_blockscout) | 11,195,199,673 | 8.1% | [0xeeb4d840…](https://eth.blockscout.com/token/0xeeb4d8400aeefafc1b2953e0094134a887c76bd8) |
| XDATA | 98,817,636 (evm_blockscout) | 987,154,514 | 10.0% | [0x0cf0ee63…](https://eth.blockscout.com/token/0x0cf0ee63788a0849fe5297f3407f701e122cc023) |
| NRG | 11,152,992 (ethereum_rpc) | 105,840,056 | 10.5% | [0x14169461…](https://etherscan.io/token/0x1416946162b1c2c871a73b07e932d2fb6c932069) |
| U2U | 1,000,000,000 (evm_blockscout) | 9,150,000,000 | 10.9% | [0x558e7139…](https://eth.blockscout.com/token/0x558e7139800f8bc119f68d23a6126fffd43a66a6) |
| EAI | 138,091,897 (evm_blockscout) | 1,000,000,000 | 13.8% | [0xa84f95eb…](https://eth.blockscout.com/token/0xa84f95eb3dabdc1bbd613709ef5f2fd42ce5be8d) |

## 4. Whale netflow extremes — exchange wallet flows

First difference of summed proof-of-reserve wallet balances across a FIXED exchange set (DefiLlama-tracked; Coinbase/Kraken publish no wallets and are absent). Flagged when the latest daily flow sits outside the middle 90% of its own ~90-day history.

*Null expectation: with no signal at all, this rule would flag about 4.0 of the 47 assets evaluated on a typical day (measured on their own history). Today: 3 flagged, 3 shown. A flag is a place to look, not a finding.*

- **LTC** 2026-10-24: +13.426% of tracked balance (top 5% of 129d) — Coins arriving on tracked exchange wallets
- **FET** 2026-10-25: -1.605% of tracked balance (bottom 5% of 72d) — Coins leaving tracked exchange wallets (cannot be market-sold from cold storage)
- **ARB** 2026-10-25: +1.202% of tracked balance (top 5% of 137d) — Coins arriving on tracked exchange wallets

## 5. Concentration watch — Solana holder concentration

*Token ACCOUNTS, not owners — pools, treasuries and exchange wallets count, so this is an upper-bound concentration proxy. Series began 2026-08-24; week-over-week deltas appear as the baseline accrues.*

- **STAR**: top-10 accounts hold 99.8% (top-1: 33.1%)
- **BRUSH**: top-10 accounts hold 99.8% (top-1: 41.9%)
- **GGRID**: top-10 accounts hold 99.6% (top-1: 87.7%)
- **PULSE**: top-10 accounts hold 99.5% (top-1: 27.6%)
- **ACRON**: top-10 accounts hold 98.3% (top-1: 89.0%)
- **ROVR**: top-10 accounts hold 98.1% (top-1: 20.2%)
- **GB**: top-10 accounts hold 96.3% (top-1: 86.5%)
- **CPU**: top-10 accounts hold 95.7% (top-1: 76.5%)
- **PHY**: top-10 accounts hold 95.6% (top-1: 40.9%)
- **CONDUIT**: top-10 accounts hold 95.5% (top-1: 85.3%)

## 6. Supply movers — first-party telemetry, 7 days

First-party supply telemetry only (tier=supply_telemetry). Latest value vs the value ~8-15 days ago; moves >15% shown. Single-window description, not a trend.

- **SN104 SUBNET_ALPHA_IN_EMISSION**: +12754971.9% (4.91e-07 → 0.0626274, as of 2026-10-24)
- **SN104 SUBNET_TAO_IN_EMISSION**: +12589850.0% (2e-09 → 0.000251799, as of 2026-10-24)
- **FLOCK token_transfers_total**: +4498833.3% (171 → 7.69318e+06, as of 2026-10-24)
- **RECALL token_transfers_total**: +3471726.1% (184 → 6.38816e+06, as of 2026-10-24)
- **SN59 SUBNET_VOLUME**: +731782.6% (1.3847 → 10134.4, as of 2026-10-24)
- **FLOCK DL_FEES_24H_USD**: +252122.2% (0.09 → 227, as of 2026-10-24)
- **FLOCK DL_REV_24H_USD**: +252122.2% (0.09 → 227, as of 2026-10-24)
- **SN86 SUBNET_ALPHA_IN_EMISSION**: +30720.8% (7.4834e-05 → 0.0230644, as of 2026-10-24)
- **SN121 SUBNET_PENDING_VALIDATOR_EMISSION**: +27844.2% (0.337827 → 94.4032, as of 2026-10-24)
- **SN121 SUBNET_PENDING_OWNER_CUT**: +27800.0% (0.179995 → 50.2187, as of 2026-10-24)
- **SN121 SUBNET_PENDING_MINER_EMISSION**: +27800.0% (0.410002 → 114.391, as of 2026-10-24)
- **SN121 SUBNET_PENDING_ROOT_DIVIDENDS**: +27593.1% (0.0721748 → 19.9874, as of 2026-10-24)
- **SN122 SUBNET_PENDING_MINER_EMISSION**: +21831.6% (0.820005 → 179.84, as of 2026-10-24)
- **SN86 SUBNET_TAO_IN_EMISSION**: +18611.3% (3.35e-07 → 6.2683e-05, as of 2026-10-24)
- **SN122 SUBNET_PENDING_OWNER_CUT**: +13950.4% (0.359991 → 50.58, as of 2026-10-24)
- **SN122 SUBNET_PENDING_ROOT_DIVIDENDS**: +13660.4% (0.354533 → 48.7852, as of 2026-10-24)
- **SN59 SUBNET_TAO_FLOW**: +11981.0% (1.33904 → 161.769, as of 2026-10-24)
- **SN112 SUBNET_EXCESS_TAO**: +9856.5% (1.2016e-05 → 0.00119637, as of 2026-10-24)
- **NES holders_count**: +8919.4% (129 → 11635, as of 2026-10-24)
- **SN123 SUBNET_PENDING_VALIDATOR_EMISSION**: +6986.1% (1.35135 → 95.7577, as of 2026-10-24)

## 7. The track record — the prior edition, re-measured

Every claim in the prior edition of this brief (2026-10-24), re-measured today by this edition's generator. The brief is generated daily, so the prior edition is normally the previous day's. Generated mechanically from the prior edition's JSON: reversals cannot be dropped and wins cannot be added by hand.

*Grading the 2026-10-24 edition.* **2 CHANGED IN CURRENT WINDOW** · **1 GRADUATED** · **10 HELD** · **1 NOT COMPARABLE** · **1 REVERSED** · **1 STILL WITHHELD** · **10 UNCHANGED OBSERVATIONS**

| Claim we published | Outcome | Re-measured today |
|---|---|---|
| FLUX memory_bytes, as published in the 2026-10-24 edition: Window “2026-08-24 → 2026-10-23 (60d)”; Ratio, start → end “utilisation 9.65% → 6.31%”; Denominator Δ “capacity 8.16%”; Numerator Δ “recorded use -29.23%”; Divergence “37.39pp”; Read “capacity growth exceeds use growth” | **HELD** | now capacity growth exceeds use growth at 38.26pp, utilisation 6.23% over 2026-08-24 → 2026-10-24 (61d) (-0.08pp since the 2026-10-24 edition) |
| FLUX storage_bytes, as published in the 2026-10-24 edition: Window “2026-08-24 → 2026-10-23 (60d)”; Ratio, start → end “utilisation 5.18% → 3.68%”; Denominator Δ “capacity 5.25%”; Numerator Δ “recorded use -25.09%”; Divergence “30.35pp”; Read “capacity growth exceeds use growth” | **HELD** | now capacity growth exceeds use growth at 30.76pp, utilisation 3.66% over 2026-08-24 → 2026-10-24 (61d) (-0.02pp since the 2026-10-24 edition) |
| FLUX compute_cores, as published in the 2026-10-24 edition: Window “2026-08-24 → 2026-10-23 (60d)”; Ratio, start → end “utilisation 16.93% → 12.15%”; Denominator Δ “capacity 7.09%”; Numerator Δ “recorded use -23.15%”; Divergence “30.24pp”; Read “capacity growth exceeds use growth” | **HELD** | now capacity growth exceeds use growth at 31.05pp, utilisation 12.02% over 2026-08-24 → 2026-10-24 (61d) (-0.13pp since the 2026-10-24 edition) |
| FIL storage_bytes, as published in the 2026-10-24 edition: Window “2026-08-24 → 2026-10-23 (60d)”; Ratio, start → end “utilisation 87.89% → 90.12%”; Denominator Δ “capacity -7.78%”; Numerator Δ “recorded use -5.44%”; Divergence “-2.34pp”; Read “growth rates within 5pp” | **HELD** | now growth rates within 5pp at -2.42pp, utilisation 90.2% over 2026-08-24 → 2026-10-24 (61d) (+0.08pp since the 2026-10-24 edition) |
| TFT memory_bytes, as published in the 2026-10-24 edition: Window “2026-08-24 → 2026-10-23 (60d)”; Ratio, start → end “utilisation 13.87% → 15.53%”; Denominator Δ “capacity -11.59%”; Numerator Δ “recorded use -1.07%”; Divergence “-10.52pp”; Read “use growth exceeds capacity growth” | **HELD** | now use growth exceeds capacity growth at -10.23pp, utilisation 15.48% over 2026-08-24 → 2026-10-24 (61d) (-0.05pp since the 2026-10-24 edition) |
| IO devices, as published in the 2026-10-24 edition: Window “2026-08-06 → 2026-10-23 (78d)”; Ratio, start → end “active-device share 57.28% → 64.53%”; Denominator Δ “total devices -7.47%”; Numerator Δ “active devices 4.25%”; Divergence “-11.72pp”; Read “active-device growth exceeds total-device growth” | **REVERSED** | now growth rates within 5pp at -4.1pp, active-device share 59.62% over 2026-08-06 → 2026-10-24 (79d) (-4.91pp since the 2026-10-24 edition) |
| AKT storage_bytes, as published in the 2026-10-24 edition: Window “2026-08-17 → 2026-10-23 (67d)”; Ratio, start → end “utilisation 7.98% → 9.28%”; Denominator Δ “capacity -13.96%”; Numerator Δ “recorded use 0.15%”; Divergence “-14.11pp”; Read “use growth exceeds capacity growth” | **HELD** | now use growth exceeds capacity growth at -13.34pp, utilisation 9.23% over 2026-08-17 → 2026-10-24 (68d) (-0.05pp since the 2026-10-24 edition) |
| SC storage_bytes, as published in the 2026-10-24 edition: Window “2026-08-20 → 2026-10-23 (64d)”; Ratio, start → end “utilisation 25.85% → 30.59%”; Denominator Δ “capacity -6.34%”; Numerator Δ “recorded use 10.86%”; Divergence “-17.2pp”; Read “use growth exceeds capacity growth” | **HELD** | now use growth exceeds capacity growth at -16.09pp, utilisation 30.25% over 2026-08-20 → 2026-10-24 (65d) (-0.34pp since the 2026-10-24 edition) |
| AKT compute_cores, as published in the 2026-10-24 edition: Window “2026-08-09 → 2026-10-24 (76d)”; Ratio, start → end “utilisation 20.55% → 26.07%”; Denominator Δ “capacity -8.34%”; Numerator Δ “recorded use 16.27%”; Divergence “-24.61pp”; Read “use growth exceeds capacity growth” | **HELD** | now use growth exceeds capacity growth at -26.32pp, utilisation 26.47% over 2026-08-09 → 2026-10-25 (77d) (+0.4pp since the 2026-10-24 edition) |
| TFT compute_cores, as published in the 2026-10-24 edition: Window “2026-08-24 → 2026-10-23 (60d)”; Ratio, start → end “utilisation 15.02% → 20.12%”; Denominator Δ “capacity -10.4%”; Numerator Δ “recorded use 20.0%”; Divergence “-30.4pp”; Read “use growth exceeds capacity growth” | **HELD** | now use growth exceeds capacity growth at -30.07pp, utilisation 20.06% over 2026-08-24 → 2026-10-24 (61d) (-0.06pp since the 2026-10-24 edition) |
| AKT memory_bytes, as published in the 2026-10-24 edition: Window “2026-08-09 → 2026-10-24 (76d)”; Ratio, start → end “utilisation 14.92% → 34.88%”; Denominator Δ “capacity -23.02%”; Numerator Δ “recorded use 80.02%”; Divergence “-103.04pp”; Read “use growth exceeds capacity growth” | **HELD** | now use growth exceeds capacity growth at -104.61pp, utilisation 35.21% over 2026-08-09 → 2026-10-25 (77d) (+0.33pp since the 2026-10-24 edition) |
| TFT storage_bytes, as published in the 2026-10-24 edition: Window “2026-08-24 → 2026-10-23 (60d)”; Ratio, start → end “utilisation 0.0% → 0.0%”; Denominator Δ “capacity 11.88%”; Numerator Δ “recorded use n/a”; Divergence “n/a”; Read “not comparable” | **NOT COMPARABLE** | now not comparable at n/a, utilisation 0.0% over 2026-08-24 → 2026-10-24 (61d) (+0.0pp since the 2026-10-24 edition) |
| SOGNI `dex_gt_venues_active` unchanged for 10d at 3 | **UNCHANGED OBSERVATIONS** | The stored observations remain at 3 in the current window; feed failure is unproven. |
| INFRA#infraxa `dex_venues_active` unchanged for 10d at 1 | **UNCHANGED OBSERVATIONS** | The stored observations remain at 1 in the current window; feed failure is unproven. |
| SHDW `dex_pairs_active` unchanged for 10d at 1 | **UNCHANGED OBSERVATIONS** | The stored observations remain at 1 in the current window; feed failure is unproven. |
| OORT `dex_gt_pairs_active` unchanged for 10d at 20 | **UNCHANGED OBSERVATIONS** | The stored observations remain at 20 in the current window; feed failure is unproven. |
| OORT `dex_gt_pair_volume_24h_usd` unchanged for 10d at 0 | **CHANGED IN CURRENT WINDOW** | The current window contains 3 distinct values; this does not date the change relative to the prior report. |
| ONDO `dex_pairs_active` unchanged for 10d at 1 | **UNCHANGED OBSERVATIONS** | The stored observations remain at 1 in the current window; feed failure is unproven. |
| DGRAM `dex_gt_venues_active` unchanged for 10d at 3 | **CHANGED IN CURRENT WINDOW** | The current window contains 2 distinct values; this does not date the change relative to the prior report. |
| STAR `dex_gt_pairs_active` unchanged for 10d at 10 | **UNCHANGED OBSERVATIONS** | The stored observations remain at 10 in the current window; feed failure is unproven. |
| XL1 `dex_gt_pairs_active` unchanged for 10d at 8 | **UNCHANGED OBSERVATIONS** | The stored observations remain at 8 in the current window; feed failure is unproven. |
| XDATA `dex_gt_venues_active` unchanged for 10d at 1 | **UNCHANGED OBSERVATIONS** | The stored observations remain at 1 in the current window; feed failure is unproven. |
| ONO `dex_gt_venues_active` unchanged for 10d at 2 | **UNCHANGED OBSERVATIONS** | The stored observations remain at 2 in the current window; feed failure is unproven. |
| AUKI `dex_gt_pairs_active` unchanged for 10d at 20 | **UNCHANGED OBSERVATIONS** | The stored observations remain at 20 in the current window; feed failure is unproven. |
| AKT gpus withheld, as published in the 2026-10-24 edition: “base moved 102% over 2026-08-09 → 2026-10-24 (76d)” | **GRADUATED** | its growth is back within the 100% review trigger; it is in the table above in this edition |
| GLM providers withheld, as published in the 2026-10-24 edition: “base moved 539% over 2026-08-06 → 2026-10-24 (79d)” | **STILL WITHHELD** | growth is still above the 100% review trigger in the current window; the cause is not established |

## 8. The call sheet — the questions these numbers earn you

Each question is generated from a measured row in this brief and carries that row's number. No question appears here that the data above does not support.

**1. FLUX team / FLUX allocation**
> Over 2026-08-24 → 2026-10-24 (61d) memory_bytes capacity moved +8.13% while demand moved -30.13%, so utilisation fell 3.42pp to 6.23%. What is the committed demand pipeline that absorbs the capacity already onboarded, and what does the emission schedule cost per idle unit until it does?

*Basis: memory_bytes utilisation 9.65% → 6.23% over 2026-08-24 → 2026-10-24 (61d), capacity +8.13% vs demand -30.13%*

**2. FLUX team / FLUX allocation**
> Over 2026-08-24 → 2026-10-24 (61d) compute_cores capacity moved +6.99% while demand moved -24.06%, so utilisation fell 4.91pp to 12.02%. What is the committed demand pipeline that absorbs the capacity already onboarded, and what does the emission schedule cost per idle unit until it does?

*Basis: compute_cores utilisation 16.93% → 12.02% over 2026-08-24 → 2026-10-24 (61d), capacity +6.99% vs demand -24.06%*

**3. FLUX team / FLUX allocation**
> Over 2026-08-24 → 2026-10-24 (61d) storage_bytes capacity moved +5.22% while demand moved -25.54%, so utilisation fell 1.52pp to 3.66%. What is the committed demand pipeline that absorbs the capacity already onboarded, and what does the emission schedule cost per idle unit until it does?

*Basis: storage_bytes utilisation 5.18% → 3.66% over 2026-08-24 → 2026-10-24 (61d), capacity +5.22% vs demand -25.54%*

**4. TFT team / TFT allocation**
> Over 2026-08-24 → 2026-10-24 (61d) demand for memory_bytes moved -1.34% against -11.56% for capacity, so utilisation rose 1.61pp to 15.48%. Is there evidence of an onboarding constraint (hardware, staking cost, geography), and at what utilisation does pricing or QoS start to bind?

*Basis: memory_bytes utilisation 13.87% → 15.48% over 2026-08-24 → 2026-10-24 (61d), demand -1.34% vs capacity -11.56%*

**5. AKT team / AKT allocation**
> Over 2026-08-17 → 2026-10-24 (68d) demand for storage_bytes moved -2.07% against -15.41% for capacity, so utilisation rose 1.25pp to 9.23%. Is there evidence of an onboarding constraint (hardware, staking cost, geography), and at what utilisation does pricing or QoS start to bind?

*Basis: storage_bytes utilisation 7.98% → 9.23% over 2026-08-17 → 2026-10-24 (68d), demand -2.07% vs capacity -15.41%*

**6. SC team / SC allocation**
> Over 2026-08-20 → 2026-10-24 (65d) demand for storage_bytes moved +10.62% against -5.47% for capacity, so utilisation rose 4.4pp to 30.25%. Is there evidence of an onboarding constraint (hardware, staking cost, geography), and at what utilisation does pricing or QoS start to bind?

*Basis: storage_bytes utilisation 25.85% → 30.25% over 2026-08-20 → 2026-10-24 (65d), demand +10.62% vs capacity -5.47%*

**7. AKT team / AKT allocation**
> Over 2026-08-09 → 2026-10-25 (77d) demand for compute_cores moved +17.6% against -8.72% for capacity, so utilisation rose 5.92pp to 26.47%. Is there evidence of an onboarding constraint (hardware, staking cost, geography), and at what utilisation does pricing or QoS start to bind?

*Basis: compute_cores utilisation 20.55% → 26.47% over 2026-08-09 → 2026-10-25 (77d), demand +17.6% vs capacity -8.72%*

**8. TFT team / TFT allocation**
> Over 2026-08-24 → 2026-10-24 (61d) demand for compute_cores moved +19.73% against -10.35% for capacity, so utilisation rose 5.04pp to 20.06%. Is there evidence of an onboarding constraint (hardware, staking cost, geography), and at what utilisation does pricing or QoS start to bind?

*Basis: compute_cores utilisation 15.02% → 20.06% over 2026-08-24 → 2026-10-24 (61d), demand +19.73% vs capacity -10.35%*

**9. AKT team / AKT allocation**
> Over 2026-08-09 → 2026-10-25 (77d) demand for memory_bytes moved +81.51% against -23.1% for capacity, so utilisation rose 20.29pp to 35.21%. Is there evidence of an onboarding constraint (hardware, staking cost, geography), and at what utilisation does pricing or QoS start to bind?

*Basis: memory_bytes utilisation 14.92% → 35.21% over 2026-08-09 → 2026-10-25 (77d), demand +81.51% vs capacity -23.1%*

**10. AKT team / AKT allocation**
> Over 2026-08-09 → 2026-10-25 (77d) demand for gpus moved +98.77% against -11.41% for capacity, so utilisation rose 39.36pp to 71.0%. Is there evidence of an onboarding constraint (hardware, staking cost, geography), and at what utilisation does pricing or QoS start to bind?

*Basis: gpus utilisation 31.64% → 71.0% over 2026-08-09 → 2026-10-25 (77d), demand +98.77% vs capacity -11.41%*

**11. JCT team / their public dashboard**
> Our stored observations of `dex_pairs_active` contain one value, 1, spanning 10 days across 40 stored observations, while 7 other metrics on JCT kept moving. When did that figure last recompute, and is anything downstream of it — grant reporting, rewards, the investor deck — reading it as live?

*Basis: `dex_pairs_active` = 1 across 40 stored observations over 10d*

**12. PHB team / their public dashboard**
> Our stored observations of `dex_gt_venues_active` contain one value, 3, spanning 10 days across 40 stored observations, while 7 other metrics on PHB kept moving. When did that figure last recompute, and is anything downstream of it — grant reporting, rewards, the investor deck — reading it as live?

*Basis: `dex_gt_venues_active` = 3 across 40 stored observations over 10d*


---
*Kairos Signal — provenance or silence. Verify any value: every API row ships source, as_of and a verify URL. https://kairossignal.com*