NFT Analytics

What the vendor removes before it prints the number — 6/10

FIRST, the wash-filter rule is published: https://docs.nftgo.io/docs/wash-trade-filter-1 carries a 'Wash Trade Auto Filter' table enumerating the metrics filtered automatically in the web product, and both metric glossaries label each affected figure 'Suspected wash trades have been filtered out'. The rule itself is still unreproducible ('transaction cycles and transaction closed loops'), and the V1.1 API default is false in the published OpenAPI: default-on in the UI, default-off in the API, both series recoverable. SECOND, on accuracy: the words 'accuracy, stability and Interpretability' are a link description in the 'Learn More' list on https://docs.nftgo.io/reference/gopricing, not the substance of the evaluation docs; https://docs.nftgo.io/reference/evaluation-method names MAPE as the primary metric and publishes its formula, omitting only every number. THIRD, it is not a flat contradiction that algorithm-principle says 'Parameters are calculated by linear regression according to transaction history' while gopricing says 'Normally, gradient-boosting models perform well in small data scenarios of the NFT market.' Read in context the gopricing line is a general remark — it is preceded by 'This floor price-based framework is suitable for any regression model' — and the Stanford Blockchain Review paper NFTGo links from that same page discusses GBDT at length specifically to reject it for poor interpretability in favour of the linear Premium Model. So this is an ambiguity about which estimator is actually fitted, not two flatly opposed claims; it remains a disclosure defect because no page states the shipped estimator unambiguously. Finally, the formula 'Estimate Price = Floor Price + Intercept + Sum of (Trait Weights x Floor Price)' is rendered on the algorithm page as an IMAGE (files.readme.io/710898f-image.png), not as text (as the page's markdown source shows). An automated summariser returned it to an earlier pass as a verbatim quote. It is not quoted as text anywhere in this record and no downstream copy should either.

No price is published on any page loaded on 28 September 2026. The Compute Units page at https://docs.nftgo.io/reference/compute-units (HTTP 200) states: "To ensure more reasonable pricing for our services, we utilize "compute units" (CU) to describe the cost for each API on NFTGo, as the cost can vary significantly across different APIs. Your charges will be based on the volume of CUs consumed." It then publishes per-endpoint CU costs under the columns "API Endpoint | CU(s) | CU(s) Additional" (for example, Get NFTs by collection costs 800 CU and Get rarity by NFT 100 CU) but no currency amount per CU and no plan tiers. The docs name the plan and billing surfaces elsewhere: https://docs.nftgo.io/v2.2/reference/introduction.md says "You can view [Pricing](https://developer.nftgo.io/pricing) and choose the package plan that best suits your needs" and "Currently, we have a rate limit of 5 requests per second (5RPS) for a free trial." On 28 September 2026 https://developer.nftgo.io/pricing and https://developer.nftgo.io/ both returned HTTP 404 with the body {"error_msg":"404 Route Not Found"}, exactly as on 14 August 2026, and https://nftgo.io/pricing returned HTTP 403 behind a Cloudflare challenge (a rendering fetch was also refused with 403). No CU-to-currency rate is readable anywhere, so cost cannot be compared before a sales conversation.