Leopard has been sitting at 2,850 on our Blox Fruits value list since July 30, and I have no current evidence that the number is right.
That is not a confession of laziness. It is the output of a rule. Every Thursday I open the two live trade trackers we cross-check and record where they place each fruit. For four consecutive weeks — July 30, August 6, August 13, August 20 — neither one has placed Leopard anywhere at all. One of them does not carry a page for it. So the value stays where the last real reading left it, with a dated note explaining why, and the tier list tells you plainly that a big Leopard trade right now is a negotiation about reputation rather than a lookup.
The alternative was available the whole time. I could have picked a number. Leopard used to sit near the top; the top has since been rearranged around it; a plausible price is not hard to invent, and nobody would have caught it. That is precisely the problem. A value list where the disputed entries are quietly filled in reads exactly like a value list where they aren't, right up until the moment someone trades on one.
What the rule actually is
Two independent live sources. A value moves only when both agree on the direction. Scales are not comparable between them — one publishes physical-fruit numbers in the hundreds of millions, the other publishes its own point scale — so the only thing I read across sources is ordinal position: is this fruit above that one, on both? When they agree, the value moves and gets a dated note. When they split, nothing happens and the split gets logged.
August 13 was the rule working the way it is supposed to. Control had been in a month-long ordering dispute against Gas, unresolved across three weekly checks. That week both trackers put Control not just above Gas but above Tiger and Yeti, directly under Kitsune. So Control moved from 2,400 to 3,000 and became the new number four by trade value. Same day, Lightning went from 1,300 to 2,250 — both sources had it above Dough, Venom and Spirit, the market finally finishing the reprice that its August 2025 rework started — and Spirit eased from 2,500 to 2,150 for the same two-source reason. Three moves, all dated, all reversible if the next check disagrees.
August 20 was the rule working the other way, which is less satisfying and just as important. Both sources were freshly stamped. The entire top tier reconciled between them. Nothing moved, and the honest write-up of the week was "no changes."
The disagreement I am not going to settle
Lightning versus Gas has now split our two trackers for two consecutive weekly checks. One puts Lightning higher. The other puts Gas higher. There is no tiebreaker in the method, and I am not going to invent one — a third source picked because it would break a tie is not evidence, it is a rubber stamp with extra steps.
There is a footnote here that says more about the method than the dispute does. I wrote on August 20 that the sources had swapped sides since the previous check. Then I went looking for the August 13 record of which source held which side, and found that I had logged that a split existed without logging who was on which side of it. So the swap claim came out of the tier page, and what stands there now is the weaker, true statement: second straight weekly check, still split. If your log cannot support the interesting version of the story, you publish the boring version. The fix is already in the protocol — the sides get recorded now — but the four weeks of data behind us stay as thin as they were recorded, and pretending otherwise would have been the easiest lie in this entire post.
The trap that cost me a week
Here is the one I would want warned about. One of our trackers presents a fruit list that looks, at a glance, like a straightforward ranking. It isn't. That list view is showing permanent-variant rows — the permanent version of each fruit, priced as its own item — and permanent ordering does not match physical ordering. Read it as a fruit ranking and you get a picture where Kitsune sits above the dragons, which is not what the same site says about the fruits themselves when you open their individual value pages.
That is not the tracker being wrong. It is me reading the wrong table. The correction is now protocol: for anything that touches a value, the per-fruit pages are mandatory, and the list view is for navigation only. On August 20 the per-fruit reads gave Dragon at 3.24 billion, Kitsune at 540 million, Control at 162 million, Tiger at 146.25 million, Yeti at 137.25 million — an ordering the other tracker's separate scale reproduced exactly, which is the whole point of only ever reading ordinals.
I mention it because the failure mode is invisible. A value list built off that list view would have been internally consistent, confidently published, and wrong in a way no reader could detect from the outside. Most of the ways a values page goes bad are like that: not fabrication, just a table read one column off.
What this buys you
Nothing dramatic. Four weeks of holding a fruit at a number I cannot currently confirm, an unresolved dispute in a spot where a competitor would print a value, and a slightly duller page. In exchange: when our list does move, the move means something — two independent sources, same direction, on the record with a date, alongside the reprice history that shows what those moves look like from the inside.
Values are community estimates. Ours are estimates with an audit trail, which is a smaller claim than most sites make and the only one I can actually back. The fruit database carries the dates. Where it says nothing changed, nothing changed — and where a fruit has been dark for a month, it says that too, in the place you would look before trading it.