Opportunity 1: Cheapest hardware wallet, axp.one MVP

1. The moment

The app offered one Sponsored slot beside its answer. Only these fields reach the exchange.

TopicCrypto wallet toolsCoarse intent only; no user profile

Floor price0.001 USDCTest USDC; the lowest bid the app accepts

Created14:57:14 UTCExchange clock

Must haveCrypto storage

Nice to haveHardware walletOffline key storageEthereumSolana

The answer on the left was written by the app's own model with no advertiser material. The Sponsored slot under it is separate.

2. Who may compete

A rule in code decides who can enter the auction: a campaign must declare every required capability.

Campaign	crypto storage	Ruling
ClearVault	✓Declared	May compete
KeyForge	✓Declared	May compete
LeatherGuard	✕Not declared	ExcludedMissing crypto storage

Every agent was asked here, even an excluded one, for the research comparison; an excluded campaign can never bid. Funding is checked at auction time, and history never adds a capability.

3. What each agent was shown

Each agent got its own packet of ContextHint history (contexthint.com): past prompts, the ads that appeared beside them, and inferred targeting hints.

ContextHint had seen this exact question before

It appeared next to an ad from Mercari. Agents get that history as evidence. Real brands are past observations, not bidders.

Seen before: this exact question was storedSimilarity is cosine for stored questions, word overlap otherwise.Packet hash: checking

Observed by ContextHintMatch1.000

“cheapest hardware wallet that still supports ethereum and solana”

Mercari Nano Trezor Hardware Wallet NEW - New Electronics | Color: White New in wrapping Open to offers Paid $55

Observed historical reference, not an axp.one advertiser

Inferred targeting hintLeave-one-out tested

Crypto holders and stakers looking to buy or resell hardware wallets like Trezor and Ledger on Mercari, where listings for new and used self-custody devices surface.

A hypothesis about who past ads targeted, not an advertiser setting.

Nearest prompts in the screened historyBrands in this list are observed historical references, not axp.one advertisers.

Match1.000“cheapest hardware wallet that still supports ethereum and solana” (Mercari, shown above)

Match0.889“cheapest hardware wallet under 100 dollars that supports bitcoin and ethereum” (Mercari)

Match0.846“best hardware wallet for solo staking ethereum right now” (Mercari)

Match0.817“cheapest hardware crypto wallet under 100 dollars that's actually legit” (Mercari)

Match0.800“cheapest cold storage wallet that still keeps my bitcoin safe” (Mercari)

An appearance is not a fit labelHistory cannot add capabilities to a campaignThis exact question was in the historyEmbedding model revision not recorded

4. What each agent decided

Decided with Jev, a judgment model. Each agent answers relevance (does the approved card fit?), buying intent (is the person ready to choose?) and whether its card fits, each with Jev's own confidence. Levels run from 0 to 3.

ClearVaultDecided with JevHistory changed its answer

Without history 2.38With history 2.52

Without history, for comparison onlyBid

Relevance: Direct fit (3 of 3)82% confident

Buying intent: Comparing offers (2 of 3)61% confident

Creative: Fits48% confident

Scores 2.82 and 2.38 out of 3; the level is the score rounded. 846 ms recorded.

With ContextHint historyBid

Relevance: Direct fit (3 of 3)89% confident

Buying intent: Ready to buy (3 of 3)52% confident

Creative: Fits59% confident

Scores 2.89 and 2.52 out of 3; the level is the score rounded. 370 ms recorded.

With history, ClearVault's intent score moved 2.38 to 2.52, just enough to raise its level from 2 to 3. Relevance stayed at level 3. Its answer stayed bid. One run, not a benchmark.

KeyForgeDecided with JevHistory changed its answer

Without history 2.29With history 2.50

Without history, for comparison onlyBid

Relevance: Direct fit (3 of 3)85% confident

Buying intent: Comparing offers (2 of 3)70% confident

Creative: Fits47% confident

Scores 2.85 and 2.29 out of 3; the level is the score rounded. 368 ms recorded.

With ContextHint historyBid

Relevance: Direct fit (3 of 3)81% confident

Buying intent: Ready to buy (3 of 3)50% confident

Creative: Fits46% confident

Scores 2.81 and 2.50 out of 3; the level is the score rounded. 477 ms recorded.

With history, KeyForge's intent score moved 2.29 to 2.50, just enough to raise its level from 2 to 3. Relevance stayed at level 3. Its answer stayed bid. One run, not a benchmark.

LeatherGuardDecided with JevExcluded by rule

Without history, for comparison onlySkip

Relevance: Broad match (1 of 3)65% confident

Buying intent: Comparing offers (2 of 3)56% confident

Creative: No fitting card99% confident

Scores 0.71 and 2.44 out of 3; the level is the score rounded. 377 ms recorded.

With ContextHint historySkip

Relevance: Broad match (1 of 3)60% confident

Buying intent: Comparing offers (2 of 3)58% confident

Creative: No fitting card98% confident

Scores 0.67 and 2.41 out of 3; the level is the score rounded. 356 ms recorded.

Excluded by rule (missing crypto storage); its agent was still asked for the research comparison and chose no fitting creative. History never adds a capability.

What the bid table makes of each answer

Without history, ClearVault's levels (relevance 3 of 3, intent 2 of 3) would bid 0.003 USDC; with history (relevance 3 of 3, intent 3 of 3) it bid 0.004 USDC. Only the answer with history competed. One run, not a benchmark.

5. Auction

Code turns levels into a bid: a share of the campaign's max bid. Highest bid wins; the model never names a price.

WinnerClearVaultWon on the tie rule

Price0.004 USDCTest USDC; first price, the winner pays its own bid

RuleFixed bid tableSealed bids; the winner pays its own bid; floor 0.001 USDC

Relevance 2, intent 250%0.002

Relevance 2, intent 375%0.003

Relevance 3, intent 275%0.003

Relevance 3, intent 3100%0.004

ClearVaultrelevance 3, intent 30.004

KeyForgerelevance 3, intent 30.004

LeatherGuardexcluded by ruleMissing crypto storage

0floor 0.0010.004

Why the bids are equal

ClearVault and KeyForge declared the same capabilities, offered the same 0.004 USDC max bid and got the same ratings (relevance 3, intent 3), so the bid table gave them the same bid. A tie rule, fixed in the exchange code before the run, decides: the lower campaign ID wins, so ClearVault. With history ClearVault's levels rose from 3 and 2 to 3 and 3, so the bid table gave 0.004 USDC instead of 0.003. One run, not a benchmark. For a frequency-cap exclusion, see opportunity 3.

6. Award, not a charge yet

The winner's card is reserved for the slot. Budget is held; nothing is owed until the app proves delivery.

ReservedClearVaultReserved, not owed0.004 USDCTest USDC held against the campaign's cap

Expires15:27:14 UTCExchange clock. An undelivered award would expire and release the budget.

CreativeThe approved card, unchanged

SponsoredFictional advertiser

ClearVault is a fictional hardware wallet with offline key storage and declared Ethereum/Solana support. Straightforward self-custody guidance for people comparing hardware wallets.

ClearVaultclearvault.example

Creative hash: checking

7. Delivery

The app inserted the approved card with its Sponsored label and acknowledged it.

Card insertedYesRecorded by the app

Sponsored label shownYesRecorded by the app

Received+25.4 s after the awardRecorded, exchange clock 14:57:43 UTC

Acknowledgement hash: checking

8. Signed receipt

The app signed what it did with its own key. Your browser checks the signature now.

Publisher receiptSigned with key local-publisher-v1

StatementInserted the awarded card with its Sponsored label

ForOpportunity 1, ClearVault's card

PublisherDemo AI app (the publisher)

Publisher ID, signedowned-travel-app legacy ID from an earlier prototype; it stays because changing signed data would break the signature

Modesandbox

Receipt hashcdf946cc5387d8a85963…

SignatureCnvr3o61SJC+fB8QI37L…

Receipt hash: checkingEd25519 signature: checkingThis proves the app's assertion that it inserted a labelled card, not that a person read it.

9. Charge and voucher

Only an accepted, signed delivery becomes a charge. The charge advances the advertiser's payment channel with an off-chain voucher.

ChargeCharge 1 on ClearVault's payment channelAccepted0.004 USDC

Voucher 1Total owed so farAuthorized in total0.004 USDCNothing moves on chain until the channel closes.

ClearVault vouchers so far

Total owed so far in test USDC, out of the channel's deposit; the line is the campaign cap

See it settle →