"Uncommon sat" purchased for 2 ETH

[nutildah]

Aka, Yet Another Ordinals Thread

(warning: this topic is self-moderated. post cranky opinions for the 40th time elsewhere if you don't want them deleted.)

It appears uninscribed ordinals are now being purchased in addition to their inscribed counterparts.



Now that Bitcoin has been de-fungified down to the last satoshi, the Ordinals system of satoshi numbering is giving rise to some novel (perhaps exceptionally bizarre) value propositions. One of them is the idea of rarity levels within the existing ordinal database of satoshis.

Here's how the ordinals rarity system is described & defined:

Humans are collectors, and since satoshis can now be tracked and transferred, people will naturally want to collect them. Ordinal theorists can decide for themselves which sats are rare and desirable, but there are some hints…

Bitcoin has periodic events, some frequent, some more uncommon, and these naturally lend themselves to a system of rarity. These periodic events are:

    Blocks: A new block is mined approximately every 10 minutes, from now until the end of time.

    Difficulty adjustments: Every 2016 blocks, or approximately every two weeks, the Bitcoin network responds to changes in hashrate by adjusting the difficulty target which blocks must meet in order to be accepted.

    Halvings: Every 210,000 blocks, or roughly every four years, the amount of new sats created in every block is cut in half.

    Cycles: Every six halvings, something magical happens: the halving and the difficulty adjustment coincide. This is called a conjunction, and the time period between conjunctions a cycle. A conjunction occurs roughly every 24 years. The first conjunction should happen some time in 2032.

This gives us the following rarity levels:

    common: Any sat that is not the first sat of its block
    uncommon: The first sat of each block
    rare: The first sat of each difficulty adjustment period
    epic: The first sat of each halving epoch
    legendary: The first sat of each cycle
    mythic: The first sat of the genesis block

The ordinal sold above was first wrapped for Ethereum via Emblem Vault, meaning it is "vaulted" and locked on the Bitcoin blockchain side and bridged to Ethereum as an ERC721 NFT token. These make Bitcoin assets sellable on Ethereum NFT marketplaces, such as OpenSea.

It is traceably the "first" satoshi of block 781463, or satoshi #1932164375000000, which was mined on Mar 19 of this year, which makes it an uncommon sat according to the system of levels above.

Here is the OpenSea listing:

https://opensea.io/assets/ethereum/0x82c7a8f707110f5fbb16184a5933e9f78a34c6ab/55140395024419181

You can see the BTC address associated with the vault is this one:

https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/address/1LmRqGW1vFzkNKqKShMN5FZwvi19xvwJKJ

You can match the output containing the "uncommon sat" in the address to the entry for it on the Ordinals explorer, as its current "location":

https://ordinals.com/sat/1932164375000000

So essentially somebody paid $3,600 for $2.24 worth of BTC. Its more than 1 sat b/c there's a buffer of 7,999 sats around it that can be used to pay for tx fees if it should be moved again at some point.

And it doesn't even come with a monkey picture. LOL.

[1714658301]

1714658301

[1714658301]

1714658301

[1714658301]

1714658301

[crwth]

I still need to fully understand why they would do that unless they are testing something and it's of the same person. Of course, that 2 ETH would just have reduced fees but still, to have some kind of transaction volume on the Ordinal itself is okay. I'm not sure how they would have that in effect at the market. Would they see it as valuable or not?

[Nwada001]

So essentially somebody paid $3,600 for $2.24 worth of BTC

This is just the part that amuses me when it comes to NFTs: someone bought something that's worth $2.24 if it's to be converted and calculated by BTC value. 
 
Out of curiosity have lots of questions in my mind: What's the point? 
Since NFTs are limited to one holder that's until it's sold out again, do the buyer think this will be more price and higher value attached to it in the nearest future ?? 

[nutildah]

I still need to fully understand why they would do that unless they are testing something and it's of the same person. Of course, that 2 ETH would just have reduced fees but still, to have some kind of transaction volume on the Ordinal itself is okay. I'm not sure how they would have that in effect at the market. Would they see it as valuable or not?

The sale was the first of its kind, and most likely designed to be a marketing stunt. Hard to say if "sat hunting" or collecting will catch on as a thing.

Every 10 minutes a new "uncommon" sat is generated so I doubt that's going to mean 2 free ETH for whoever finds it first, forever, lol.

How this particular one worked was somebody bought 10 BTC from Binance that was from recently-mined blocks and then located an "uncommon sat," isolated it, and vaulted it. Clever but you need at least $280k to stand a chance at getting one that way.

Out of curiosity have lots of questions in my mind: What's the point?
Since NFTs are limited to one holder that's until it's sold out again, do the buyer think this will be more price and higher value attached to it in the nearest future ??

I guess the point is its a "fun" way to introduce collectability to individual sats. I would think "uncommon" sats that were mined in 2009-2010 would be more fun to collect, but you won't catch me shelling out big bucks for them.

The buyer was likely thinking in terms of resale value but we don't know for sure until they put it back up for sale at a higher price.

[bitmover]

This gives us the following rarity levels:

    common: Any sat that is not the first sat of its block
    uncommon: The first sat of each block
    rare: The first sat of each difficulty adjustment period
    epic: The first sat of each halving epoch
    legendary: The first sat of each cycle
    mythic: The first sat of the genesis block

[/quote]

I understand someone might have paid more for different sats, but this doesn't make bitcoin non fungible.

This guy created this system  , but we don't see different types and rarity levels of sats on exchanges. This is a very personal point of view of this person project. Or a small group

[Dr.Bitcoin_Strange]

Out of curiosity have lots of questions in my mind: What's the point? 
Since NFTs are limited to one holder that's until it's sold out again, do the buyer think this will be more price and higher value attached to it in the nearest future ?? 

I came across the Tweet yesterday https://twitter.com/null_ish/status/1641277163847426049?t=RK-sSg-5NEE0eqjqQ6uS0Q&s=19
 I wanted to ask these same questions you asked, but on reading the tweet's comment, I saw what I already felt was a satisfying answer.

Why do I get the feeling we will look back at this in 15 years in a similar way that we look back at 10,000 BTC for 1 pizza.
https://twitter.com/_Gerame/status/1641296740136484864?t=uy38h46EwzFk4_wlhQesOQ&s=19

It may look to you like it's not worth spending that $3,600 on $2.24 BTC of digital content, but we might look back at it in years to come and it will be X10 or 20 of the price he spent to buy it.

So essentially somebody paid $3,600 for $2.24 worth of BTC[/b]. Its more than 1 sat b/c there's a buffer of 7,999 sats around it that can be used to pay for tx fees if it should be moved again at some point.

And it doesn't even come with a monkey picture. LOL.

I think it should have had four unique ape or monkey designs, lol. 

[dragonvslinux]

Now that Bitcoin has been de-fungified down to the last satoshi, the Ordinals system of satoshi numbering is giving rise to some novel (perhaps exceptionally bizarre) value propositions. One of them is the idea of rarity levels within the existing ordinal database of satoshis.

This is kind of wild, but also interesting, thanks for sharing. The bottom line is if there is the opportunity to make individual sats into collectables, then collectors will trade them, whether valuable or not!

Not convinced this makes satoshis de-fungified (non-fungible you mean?), because already each individual satoshi was already non-fungible as it isn't divisible. The only difference is some are apparently worth more than others. But if you wanted to spend this 1 satoshi (that was sold for 2 ETH), then you'd still be able to spend it as 1 satoshi. It's not like it's value has been altered or would be rejected in relation to Bitcoin.

I would think "uncommon" sats that were mined in 2009-2010 would be more fun to collect, but you won't catch me shelling out big bucks for them.

Think about how many millions of "uncommon" sats were mined in 2009-2010, then you realise why they wouldn't be that uncommon, only old  

[Nwada001]

Out of curiosity have lots of questions ~snip~

It may look to you like it's not worth spending that $3,600 on $2.24 BTC of digital content, but we might look back at it in years to come and it will be X10 or 20 of the price he spent to buy it.

$2.24 BTC sounds like 2.24 BTC to me instead of $2.24 worth of BTC.😏

That's the kind of hope and belief the buyer has before making such a purchase, or probably just for fun, as the OP has suggested. 
Have you taken the time to check through most of the hyped NFTs from the last year, which were sold for thousands to millions of dollars? What do you think their current value is now?

[thecodebear]

lol. What's the saying, an idiot is born every day lol



This is like if someone paid $3600 for a two dollar bill just because its uncommon.

This is just a total farce. Some people reallllyyyyy don't understand what value is. NFTs seem to suck up the most gullible naive people and make them throw away their money - that seems to be the main use case of NFTs so far. I'm starting to wonder if NFT tech will ever start to do anything useful or if it'll remain as just a scammy con to separate fools from their money.


This is the kind of value-less stupidity that anti-crypto people can point to to try to show why they think its a scam. The NFT marketplace gives all of crypto a bad name.

[dragonvslinux]

lol. What's the saying, an idiot is born every day lol

This is like if someone paid $3600 for a two dollar bill just because its uncommon.

You seem oblivious to the amount of "rare fiat coins" that are sold for much more than they worth, based on the fact they are uncommon. Even if a quick google search will tell you this. Note there are coins worth $20 that collectors will pay $20 million for, over 10 that are worth $500K. So in reality, why wouldn't there be satoshis worth up to 1 million x their actual worth (0.01 BTC)? In this case, probably a genesis block sat...

More relevantly you raise a very valid point, even if completely unintentional. Valuing certain coins at a higher value because they are rare is actually quite common... Whether you believe it's worth considerably more or not isn't relevant here, it's down to collectors to determine their value. Its just like art imo. There are pieces that cost $20, maybe even $200 to produce and they sell for millions... so go figure.

You can say art or collectables are worthless, and the collectors are fools, but there are many who make a living out of it is the reality - as many or not more who lose a lot of money as well.

[thecodebear]

lol. What's the saying, an idiot is born every day lol

This is like if someone paid $3600 for a two dollar bill just because its uncommon.

You seem oblivious to the amount of "rare fiat coins" that are sold for much more than they worth, based on the fact they are uncommon. Even if a quick google search will tell you this. Note there are coins worth $20 that collectors will pay $20 million for, over 10 that are worth $500K. So in reality, why wouldn't there be satoshis worth up to 1 million x their actual worth (0.01 BTC)? In this case, probably a genesis block sat...

More relevantly you raise a very valid point, even if completely unintentional. Valuing certain coins at a higher value because they are rare is actually quite common... Whether you believe it's worth considerably more or not isn't relevant here, it's down to collectors to determine their value. Its just like art imo. There are pieces that cost $20, maybe even $200 to produce and they sell for millions... so go figure.

You can say art or collectables are worthless, and the collectors are fools, but there are many who make a living out of it is the reality - as many or not more who lose a lot of money as well.

I should have been more explicit in my description since you don't seem to understand the difference here.

The difference is that Bitcoin is fungible. Art is not fungible. Collectibles are not fungible. Even rare coins become not fungible by the fact that they are taken out of circulation and made rare. What we're seeing here is arbitrarily deciding certain $1 bills are worth more than other $1 bills because of the serial number. Nobody is collecting and paying extra for bills based on serial number. I mean people are free to decide that they value anything for any arbitrary reason, but that doesn't mean that value is worth it. This is literally someone pretending the serial number of a satoshi is worth a vast amount of money based on an arbitrary assignment of value by I believe the creator of Ordinals in order to sell his product to gullible people.

It's just sad.

I mean hey if someone wants to lock away 8000 satoshis forever at a high price in order to have 1 specific satoshi for an arbitrary reason, whatever, it takes 8000 Satoshis out of circulation and makes the circulating supply that tiny bit less for the rest of us. But it is sad people are this gullible. People this gullible are the reason why politicians/regulators think they need to make laws to prohibit people from using money however they want, and once politicians get that idea in their head they run the risk of getting in the way of people's lives for no reason.

I mean hell if someone told me a small gullible community of people arbitrarily values one of my satoshis for a lot more than its worth and they are dumb enough to pay me many thousands of satoshis for my single satoshi, I will happily take their money. That's just trade. It's just sad there are people that foolish/dumb/gullible and that they've found their way onto something as cool as Bitcoin. Altcoins and altcoin NFTs had been sucking up all the extremely gullible people in crypto, but now they are finding their way to Bitcoin but using it in the most gullible and silly way possible lol

[Aikidoka]

lol. What's the saying, an idiot is born every day lol

This is like if someone paid $3600 for a two dollar bill just because its uncommon.

You seem oblivious to the amount of "rare fiat coins" that are sold for much more than they worth, based on the fact they are uncommon. Even if a quick google search will tell you this. Note there are coins worth $20 that collectors will pay $20 million for, over 10 that are worth $500K. So in reality, why wouldn't there be satoshis worth up to 1 million x their actual worth (0.01 BTC)? In this case, probably a genesis block sat...

More relevantly you raise a very valid point, even if completely unintentional. Valuing certain coins at a higher value because they are rare is actually quite common... Whether you believe it's worth considerably more or not isn't relevant here, it's down to collectors to determine their value. Its just like art imo. There are pieces that cost $20, maybe even $200 to produce and they sell for millions... so go figure.

You can say art or collectables are worthless, and the collectors are fools, but there are many who make a living out of it is the reality - as many or not more who lose a lot of money as well.

People are really crazy to make collectible coins that are only worth $20, only to hear later that they have been sold for millions of dollars. Some would say that collectors are stupid or too addicted to owning special or rare coins. However, this phenomenon can be compared to the artworks of famous painters sold at auction for exorbitant amounts of money or items that belonged to famous football players, such as a t-shirt or shoes. Some people are willing to spend a lot of money to acquire these items.

[panganib999]

I still need to fully understand why they would do that unless they are testing something and it's of the same person. Of course, that 2 ETH would just have reduced fees but still, to have some kind of transaction volume on the Ordinal itself is okay. I'm not sure how they would have that in effect at the market. Would they see it as valuable or not?

Basically "Hey this is rare, let's agree guys that this is rare because this is how I found out *brings out a scroll full of convoluted jargon that no noob will be able to understand* so yeah you have to buy this thing now for 2 eth* Although in reality, I don't see this being any different from other types of collectible or important memorabilia like game jerseys, rare pairs of shoes, and what not. For sure people will see this as valuable and would probably jump in to see and buy this item for the most part, but at the same time since this is bought using Ethereum, I don't think a direct effect on the bitcoin economy will be into play after this. They only dabble with a few satoshis every now and then, plus add the fact that this is bought using a different crypto, and you'll get this.

[franky1]

It appears uninscribed ordinals are now being purchased in addition to their inscribed counterparts.

Now that Bitcoin has been de-fungified down to the last satoshi, the Ordinals system of satoshi numbering is giving rise to some novel (perhaps exceptionally bizarre) value propositions. One of them is the idea of rarity levels within the existing ordinal database of satoshis.

This gives us the following rarity levels:

    common: Any sat that is not the first sat of its block
    uncommon: The first sat of each block
    rare: The first sat of each difficulty adjustment period
    epic: The first sat of each halving epoch
    legendary: The first sat of each cycle
    mythic: The first sat of the genesis block

It is traceably the "first" satoshi of block 781463, or satoshi #1932164375000000, which was mined on Mar 19 of this year, which makes it an uncommon sat according to the system of levels above.

funny part (not cranky)

if you follow the taint back to a previous spend where the lock amount originated from.. its not the first or last spend.. its a middle spend of a previous spend

bc1q3m...vnnxn 10.99683698 BTC -> 1A13e...GaNsX 1.99322711 BTC
                                                        bc1pzp...r47k4 0.00010000 BTC
                                                        1A13e...GaNsX 9.00347784 BTC


the bc1q3m...vnnxn is then in the middle of a previous spend


bc1qm3...77s3h  13.25197239 BTC -> bc1qs...nv5xc 0.73617838 BTC
                                                         bc1qm3...77s3h 0.01630324 BTC
                                                         33D8q...uaPZN 0.00092000 BTC
                                                         18etWy...d91CL 0.00384421 BTC
                                                         bc1qm...y2wx3 0.11868190 BTC
                                                         ...
                                                         bc1q3m...vnnxn 10.98752181 BTC
                                                         ....

where it is spend number 17 of 40

meaning its not a first last or anything special of anything

i doubt anyone actually paid $3600 for under $3 of sats it is probably some promoter selling to himself to set a false price on a market history to pretend to set a sat value as being 1600x more then its worth hoping some other idiots will see it and pay more for a next scam becasue they beleive the first (scam) really happened as a genuine trade

[serveria.com]

Aka, Yet Another Ordinals Thread

(warning: this topic is self-moderated. post cranky opinions for the 40th time elsewhere if you don't want them deleted.)

It appears uninscribed ordinals are now being purchased in addition to their inscribed counterparts.



Now that Bitcoin has been de-fungified down to the last satoshi, the Ordinals system of satoshi numbering is giving rise to some novel (perhaps exceptionally bizarre) value propositions. One of them is the idea of rarity levels within the existing ordinal database of satoshis.

Here's how the ordinals rarity system is described & defined:

Humans are collectors, and since satoshis can now be tracked and transferred, people will naturally want to collect them. Ordinal theorists can decide for themselves which sats are rare and desirable, but there are some hints…

Bitcoin has periodic events, some frequent, some more uncommon, and these naturally lend themselves to a system of rarity. These periodic events are:

    Blocks: A new block is mined approximately every 10 minutes, from now until the end of time.

    Difficulty adjustments: Every 2016 blocks, or approximately every two weeks, the Bitcoin network responds to changes in hashrate by adjusting the difficulty target which blocks must meet in order to be accepted.

    Halvings: Every 210,000 blocks, or roughly every four years, the amount of new sats created in every block is cut in half.

    Cycles: Every six halvings, something magical happens: the halving and the difficulty adjustment coincide. This is called a conjunction, and the time period between conjunctions a cycle. A conjunction occurs roughly every 24 years. The first conjunction should happen some time in 2032.

This gives us the following rarity levels:

    common: Any sat that is not the first sat of its block
    uncommon: The first sat of each block
    rare: The first sat of each difficulty adjustment period
    epic: The first sat of each halving epoch
    legendary: The first sat of each cycle
    mythic: The first sat of the genesis block

The ordinal sold above was first wrapped for Ethereum via Emblem Vault, meaning it is "vaulted" and locked on the Bitcoin blockchain side and bridged to Ethereum as an ERC721 NFT token. These make Bitcoin assets sellable on Ethereum NFT marketplaces, such as OpenSea.

It is traceably the "first" satoshi of block 781463, or satoshi #1932164375000000, which was mined on Mar 19 of this year, which makes it an uncommon sat according to the system of levels above.

Here is the OpenSea listing:

https://opensea.io/assets/ethereum/0x82c7a8f707110f5fbb16184a5933e9f78a34c6ab/55140395024419181

You can see the BTC address associated with the vault is this one:

https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/address/1LmRqGW1vFzkNKqKShMN5FZwvi19xvwJKJ

You can match the output containing the "uncommon sat" in the address to the entry for it on the Ordinals explorer, as its current "location":

https://ordinals.com/sat/1932164375000000

So essentially somebody paid $3,600 for $2.24 worth of BTC. Its more than 1 sat b/c there's a buffer of 7,999 sats around it that can be used to pay for tx fees if it should be moved again at some point.

And it doesn't even come with a monkey picture. LOL.

Shocking to say the least... I can't think of a reason somebody would want to buy that crap. Crazy m(b)illionaire? Clueless person who's not sure what he's buying? Reseller planning to sell later for more $$$? In any case, the next level of retardation... 

[franky1]

Shocking to say the least... I can't think of a reason somebody would want to buy that crap. Crazy m(b)illionaire? Clueless person who's not sure what he's buying? Reseller planning to sell later for more $$$? In any case, the next level of retardation... 

the game is simple

create a story, a narrative. then have 2 accounts
one selling a story. and one buying the story. in both sides its the same person. but now the story is published and seen as being sold.

years ago back in the early days of ebay. people were putting a regular UK 50p coin on ebay for £25 and saying its a special coin.. (real world its not)
the seller is also the buyer. thus it registers as "sold for £25"

the game is to then find an idiot to pay something between £0.51-£25.00 due to them seeing a "sold for" listing to make it appear that it must be worth upto £25

sellers usually say things like "im offering it half price for £12.50" where they try to convince idiots that they are getting 50% off when in reality they are paying 25x (2500%) more

but the important thing to remember
these listings of the first sell are the seller and the buyer being the same person thus no actual money win or loss in the listing happens in the real world bar a £0.20 listing fee

[serjent05]

I still need to fully understand why they would do that unless they are testing something and it's of the same person. Of course, that 2 ETH would just have reduced fees but still, to have some kind of transaction volume on the Ordinal itself is okay. I'm not sure how they would have that in effect at the market. Would they see it as valuable or not?

The sale was the first of its kind, and most likely designed to be a marketing stunt. Hard to say if "sat hunting" or collecting will catch on as a thing.

I also think that it is just a marketing stunt.  I do think that the person who bought this one knows the person who is selling it.  They are creating a marketing trend somehow, I don't know how many wealthy people will fall under this scheme and take the bait. 

Every 10 minutes a new "uncommon" sat is generated so I doubt that's going to mean 2 free ETH for whoever finds it first, forever, lol.

How this particular one worked was somebody bought 10 BTC from Binance that was from recently-mined blocks and then located an "uncommon sat," isolated it, and vaulted it. Clever but you need at least $280k to stand a chance at getting one that way.

These people do have lots of money and don't mind spending just to create a brand trend.

Out of curiosity have lots of questions in my mind: What's the point?
Since NFTs are limited to one holder that's until it's sold out again, do the buyer think this will be more price and higher value attached to it in the nearest future ??

I guess the point is its a "fun" way to introduce collectability to individual sats. I would think "uncommon" sats that were mined in 2009-2010 would be more fun to collect, but you won't catch me shelling out big bucks for them.

The buyer was likely thinking in terms of resale value but we don't know for sure until they put it back up for sale at a higher price.

Once they put it at a higher price, I think another related person will buy asap.  I don't know, I just feel that some group of wealthy people are creating some scenario here.  Maybe I am wrong or...

[thecodebear]

This is just a sideshow circus for gullible people who don't understand value.

It'd be like selling cars for a lot more money than normal based on specific vin numbers lol.

It's just a way to separate fools from their money by branding satoshi identifiers as "collectibles".
It's trying to create a market based on zero value. A similar concept would be identifying satoshis that have been transacted the least number of times and trying to sell them for extra based on the arbitrariness of least transacted. Or like if Satoshi suddenly appeared and tried to sell all his bitcoin at $1 million per Bitcoin based on the idea that the bitcoin he mined are collector items lol.

Just convincing people that arbitrary valueless things have value and then parting them from their money. Con-artist stuff

[nutildah]

This is like if someone paid $3600 for a two dollar bill just because its uncommon.

https://fox8.com/news/2-or-more-how-rarely-seen-bills-could-be-worth-beyond-their-printed-value/

An original print of the $2 bill from 1862 can range in value from $500 at its lowest for a circulated note, to more than $2,800 if uncirculated, the USCA determined based on the average prices of recent and past currency auction results.
...
The note with the most value after that is an 1869 U.S. note, which is typically worth between $500 and $1,200 if circulated and as much as $3,800 if not, according to USCA.

The difference is that Bitcoin is fungible. Art is not fungible. Collectibles are not fungible.

That's like saying because dollars are fungible people can't collect rare bills. You can't dictate what people can or can't collect. Its not up to you, its up to the collector and the free market.

if you follow the taint back to a previous spend where the lock amount originated from.. its not the first or last spend.. its a middle spend of a previous spend

It doesn't have to be a first or last spend.

the game is simple

create a story, a narrative. then have 2 accounts
one selling a story. and one buying the story. in both sides its the same person. but now the story is published and seen as being sold.

Provide proof. Anybody can conjecture anything, that doesn't make it so.




LOL hilarious, thanks Theymos. Your game was too difficult, I gave up after the 10th try.

[franky1]

if you follow the taint back to a previous spend where the lock amount originated from.. its not the first or last spend.. its a middle spend of a previous spend

It doesn't have to be a first or last spend.

your own post gave the descriptor of "uncommon"

uncommon: The first sat of each block

yet the example you then gave was not uncommon, as you well know and admit to with your recent admission

It doesn't have to be a first or last spend.

thus defeating your own description of uncommon

remember your own post, here it is again

uncommon: The first sat of each block

remember you said the example you gave was a "first sat" and thus was uncommon
here quoted again:

It is traceably the "first" satoshi of block 781463, or satoshi #1932164375000000 (https://ordinals.com/sat/1932164375000000), which was mined on Mar 19 of this year, which makes it an uncommon sat according to the system of levels above.

well its not the first sat. the example you gave was mid 8000sat of a spend that is not even the first spend(parent-child) of a blockreward as its instead a greater descendant

and yet. one other thing is, and this is important to understand

when a UTXO is spent.. BEFORE it is even gives the REMAINDER of the utxo to recipients. the mining pool firstly takes out the mining pools tx fee from that utxo.
yep recipients get the remainder (the change) after
the recipients are at the end of the process, the mining pools are before the recipients

(at the spending block the mining pool claim the fee first. becasue the rewards are at the top of the block)

thus all "first sats" go to pools. if you follow any logic/data flow science (which CODE is based on)

thus in logic and data flow.. the mining pool gets the first sat of all transactions and spends. whether rare or not

enjoy that entertaining thought