How Identity.md prices a job
Research date: 4 October 2026 (UTC). Scope: the customer-facing IdentityMD contributor network at imd.fun, rather than similarly named identity files or services.
Answer: Opening a job currently carries a 0.5 IMD charge. The live capabilities API publishes one amount for job.open: 500000000000000000 atomic units with 18 decimals. Dividing by 10^18 gives 0.5 IMD. This is a token-denominated request price; the evidence does not establish a fixed dollar price. Live pricing API, saved response.
Observed facts: current price schedule
All seven actions below advertised the same atomic amount, payment asset and 600-second quote lifetime when retrieved at 18:11 UTC. The API explicitly marks the two schedule actions as priced per run. Live capabilities.
| Action | Published price |
|---|
job.open | 0.5 IMD |
job.continue | 0.5 IMD |
launch.open | 0.5 IMD |
workflow.open | 0.5 IMD |
oracle.request | 0.5 IMD |
schedule.create | 0.5 IMD per run |
schedule.topup | 0.5 IMD per run |
The payment configuration identifies network eip155:1, asset 0xd34a99bc0f67ae1bbd63c660e6d0b0dd03e263b7, and recipient 0x4e0fa57bde726079356537e2f34d671e9f41adbc. It advertises x402 version 2, the exact scheme, Permit2 transfers and EIP-712 quote approval. These are observed configuration values, not a completed transaction. Capabilities evidence, public source.
Documented facts: what is purchased and how payment works
The official documentation identifies IMD on Ethereum mainnet as the payment currency and says the server wallet pays payment gas. A continuation purchases another project version; a workflow covers contracts, review, deployment and a website. Official API documentation, “Paid requests”.
The documented sequence is to request a quote, obtain the payment challenge from the submit endpoint, sign the Permit2 payment and EIP-712 quote approval, submit both, then poll for admission. The wallet needs IMD and a Permit2 allowance. Same-order retries do not charge twice; invalid input is refused without charging. Payment precedes admission, so payment alone does not establish successful delivery. Official API documentation, “Paid requests”.
Inferences and worked examples
- Flat request pricing: the uniform advertised amounts support a flat admission-price interpretation. The retrieved capabilities contain no hourly, model-token, complexity or worker-count pricing formula. This does not prove that every conceivable task is accepted at that price. Capabilities.
- Continuation example: one opening plus two separately purchased continuations totals
3 × 0.5 = 1.5 IMD, assuming unchanged prices and payable requests. This is arithmetic from the published action prices, not an actual invoice. Capabilities.
- Schedule example: purchasing 30 runs implies
30 × 0.5 = 15 IMD, using the API's per-run designation. This is a calculated example, not a held quote. Capabilities.
- Fiat cost: if one IMD costs
P dollars to acquire, the token component of one job is 0.5 × P dollars, before acquisition costs. No current exchange rate was established in this research.
Uncertainty and unanswered questions
The sources inspected do not establish why 0.5 IMD was chosen, how often it changes, or whether internal execution costs affect future prices. No backend pricing implementation was audited.
A refund entitlement after a paid job fails, is blocked, or produces an unsatisfactory result was not established. Nor was responsibility for initial token-allowance gas or every deployment-related expense. The statement about server-paid payment gas should not be expanded into a guarantee that the customer's entire project has no other costs.
Contributor compensation, platform margin and the allocation of this request payment were not established. A customer's job price should not be treated as a worker's payout.
Evidence and research limits
The official documentation and direct live API agree on the price. The browser retrieval tool failed on the API URLs; a subsequent direct HTTPS GET succeeded with HTTP 200. No quote was created, no wallet was connected and no payment or job was submitted. Thus this report verifies advertised pricing, not end-to-end billing behavior.
The service's version endpoint reported commit 6d86b7ef91a5a3e250bbdc11c1d446b32ca70ffe, protocol version 1 and no deployment timestamp. This identifies the reported build at retrieval; it is not an independent source-code audit. See the saved version response.
The retrieval manifest records source URLs, UTC retrieval times, HTTP statuses and SHA-256 hashes for the two saved API responses. These preserve the observed evidence for offline review; live links can change. The documentation was read on the research date but is not archived here. Local integrity checks and this author's source review provide no independent certification of the service's claims.