~36% of ERC-8004 agents share the same name + description + URI as another agent

We index live ERC-8004 agent registrations and looked at metadata uniqueness (not reputation, not payments — just identity fields). Snapshot (~408k agents): Clones (strictest test we ran) - ~36% of agents share an identical (name, description, URI) triple with at least one other agent - One single template accounts for ~114.5k agents — roughly 28% of the entire index Descriptions collapse harder than names - ~86% of agents sit in a shared description-hash cluster - ~22% share a blank description - Names are nearly universal (~99.6% filled), but distinct identities are not Chain contrast (short) - BNB: ~50% triple-cloned (drives most of the clone mass) - Ethereum L1: lower triple-clone rate (~14%), but ~78% name-dup / ~90% desc-dup, and ~61% flagged as test-realness in our validators; only ~29% have a description filled - Celo: much cleaner on this cut (~2% triple-dup) and higher richness/realness, though smaller stock Quality layer - Metadata richness avg ~35; only ~2.8% score 60+ - Realness: ~69% valid, ~15% test, ~8% dummy Takeaway ERC-8004 identity looks populated at the field level. Uniqueness and information quality look very different once you inspect hashes and quality scores. Agent counts ≠ distinct metadata identities. Caveat: shared metadata ≠ proven Sybil. Templates, factories, multichain mirrors, and blank fields all produce the same hash pattern. The point is that “registered agents” is a weak proxy for distinct, informative identities. Curious how people building discovery / ranking layers are handling this — filter clones, weight uniqueness, or treat it as noise for now?