More than one contract on base (2). That is allowed — a bridge wrapper and the canonical token are separate contracts and trade in separate pools (§3) — but it is also what a clone reusing the ticker looks like. Compare the evidence below: a contract confirmed by the bridge itself outranks one matched only by symbol.
0xa7d68d155d17cb30e311367c2ef1e82ab6022b67
open
2 of 2 sources are protocol-attested — a contract confirmed this link.
| registry | +3 | {"tx":"0x4079b1d070f298f50e0e503c119d4c8abd0e03a301e27c8e5b195d3e07071b87","from":"bridge_pin"} |
| derivation | +5 | {"via":"remoteToken","adapter":"base_bridge"} |
0x799ebfabe77a6e34311eeee9825190b9ece32824
open
1 of 1 sources are protocol-attested — a contract confirmed this link.
| derivation | +5 | {"via":"remoteToken","adapter":"base_bridge","l2Chain":"base","l2Token":"0xa7d68d155d17cb30e311367c2ef1e82ab6022b67"} |
0xfe8b128ba8c78aabc59d4c64cee7ff28e9379921
open
Every source here is an inference. A contract on this chain has not confirmed the link itself.
| bridge_transfer | +5 | {"tx":"0x985ed144182cbf530789582697164f8cd91457f646d5edc3415e96c0c7adf024","adapter":"base_bridge"} |
Each chain lists the directions a transfer has actually been seen taking. Directions with no transfer behind them are folded away per card and counted in its header. Derived routes are not shown at all.
Every address above came from an on-chain read. The evidence trail shows which read produced it.